Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
The conventional wisdom was that poor countries like China and India would have to produce absolutely loads of carbon before they could get rich and clean like us. This was essentially apocalyptic for the climate, and my lecturers were talking like Preppers - store baked beans and build houses on top of mountains.
That's happening to an extent as their population and economy explodes. However, they are doing significantly better than expected which is great source of happiness for everyone in the 20s and 30s. By the time Africa gets to this stage, solar will be so cheap they can transition to a developed economy with very little increase in emissions at all. Yaaas!
Well indeed, the solution to climate issues is science and technology, not cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Cutting consumption does absolutely nothing to improve the planet, as the rest of the planet intends to increase consumption not decrease it.
The way to solve climate problems is by ensuring we invest in clean consumption. Do so and you can have as much consumption as you like without hurting the planet (since anything times zero equals zero).
We can lead the way by investing in, developing and supporting clean technologies and the rest of the world will follow on that.
The madness of watermelon lunatics who pretend to be green but really just want to hurt people's consumption will do nothing for the environment.
Me and other Greens have been arguing for Britain to invest in new technology for decades, and people have told us we shouldn't do anything until China does.
Now China has done it and it's pretty much too late for Britain to take a lead on any of the relevant technology, because Britain let other countries get there first.
Just in the last year or two the opportunity to take a lead on small modular nuclear reactors has slipped through Britain's fingers. Unless Labour manage to dramatically turn this around, Britain will be paying other countries for the green energy technology they could have profited from.
So don't lecture me about green watermelons, thank you very much.
I thought the Greens opposed nuclear ?
Green party policy is anti-nuclear. Plenty of prominent Greens have been in favour. Some Greens have been equivocal, pointing out that nuclear is just too slow to build - something the small modular reactors might be better at.
I've heard Greens especially opposing the small modular reactors because it will be hard to stop them.
Imagine a small, safe, and cheap source of huge amounts of energy that could be run out of a production line, generating both clean power for the domestic market and £billions in exports. What a horrible problem to have, imagine how much economic growth could be driven by such technology.
And then you woke up.
And yet that is what Rolls Royce are working on right now.
The economic case for SMRs relies on them becoming mass production items. It's not ridiculous, but it's also not inevitable.
Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
The conventional wisdom was that poor countries like China and India would have to produce absolutely loads of carbon before they could get rich and clean like us. This was essentially apocalyptic for the climate, and my lecturers were talking like Preppers - store baked beans and build houses on top of mountains.
That's happening to an extent as their population and economy explodes. However, they are doing significantly better than expected which is great source of happiness for everyone in the 20s and 30s. By the time Africa gets to this stage, solar will be so cheap they can transition to a developed economy with very little increase in emissions at all. Yaaas!
Well indeed, the solution to climate issues is science and technology, not cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Cutting consumption does absolutely nothing to improve the planet, as the rest of the planet intends to increase consumption not decrease it.
The way to solve climate problems is by ensuring we invest in clean consumption. Do so and you can have as much consumption as you like without hurting the planet (since anything times zero equals zero).
We can lead the way by investing in, developing and supporting clean technologies and the rest of the world will follow on that.
The madness of watermelon lunatics who pretend to be green but really just want to hurt people's consumption will do nothing for the environment.
Me and other Greens have been arguing for Britain to invest in new technology for decades, and people have told us we shouldn't do anything until China does.
Now China has done it and it's pretty much too late for Britain to take a lead on any of the relevant technology, because Britain let other countries get there first.
Just in the last year or two the opportunity to take a lead on small modular nuclear reactors has slipped through Britain's fingers. Unless Labour manage to dramatically turn this around, Britain will be paying other countries for the green energy technology they could have profited from.
So don't lecture me about green watermelons, thank you very much.
I thought the Greens opposed nuclear ?
Green party policy is anti-nuclear. Plenty of prominent Greens have been in favour. Some Greens have been equivocal, pointing out that nuclear is just too slow to build - something the small modular reactors might be better at.
I've heard Greens especially opposing the small modular reactors because it will be hard to stop them.
Imagine a small, safe, and cheap source of huge amounts of energy that could be run out of a production line, generating both clean power for the domestic market and £billions in exports. What a horrible problem to have, imagine how much economic growth could be driven by such technology.
And then you woke up.
And yet that is what Rolls Royce are working on right now.
People are working on all sorts of things. This does not mean they are automatically going to solve all our problems or even have much chance of becoming commercially practicable within a useful time frame.
There is an urgent need to decarbonise our electricity production, and we already know how to do it: through a combination of wind, solar, hydroelectric and traditional nuclear generation combined with storage and demand management. These are what we need to focus on. We simply don't have time left to rely on the pie-in-the-sky stuff.
And we're already doing it.
The UK has already eliminated coal.
The UK is well down the path to eliminating gas too now.
It'll take time to finish the job, and we need to invest especially in pylons and have the rollout of batteries/EVs continue (which are becoming cheaper year on year) but we're doing the right thing already and need to just keep calm and carry on with it.
And encourage the likes of China to belatedly catch up with us. Which they're not doing yet.
China is not only catching up; China currently has the pedal to the metal and and is just about to shoot past us. The country has industrialised in about a quarter the time taken by the UK and will very soon overtake on decarbonisation. We are complacent at our peril.
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
So far, so good anyway. I’m not particularly into football, but I get the impression that Spain are a good, creative side.
They are. Won all 6 games in 90 mins and scored lots of goals. Everyone bar England fans will probably be hoping they lift the trophy.
Having recently spent a few weeks in Poland and Estonia, I formed the impression that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has transformed neighbouring countries in ways that US and western governments completely fail to grasp. Two years of war have radically reshaped expectations.
I told you this over a year ago. The central European countries (collectively the Intermarium) have noted the threat and are restructuring based on ancient alliances, with Poland taking the lead.
Prediction, imho while the Tory party view the audience of GB News as their key demographic to win over then they will not form a government.
And if they allow Farage to take over all the GB news demographic they may not even remain main opposition
I know I've made this point before - but Reform didn't grow because the Tories were drifting centre-wards. It grew because it wasn't doing normal centre-right things competently enough.
Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
The conventional wisdom was that poor countries like China and India would have to produce absolutely loads of carbon before they could get rich and clean like us. This was essentially apocalyptic for the climate, and my lecturers were talking like Preppers - store baked beans and build houses on top of mountains.
That's happening to an extent as their population and economy explodes. However, they are doing significantly better than expected which is great source of happiness for everyone in the 20s and 30s. By the time Africa gets to this stage, solar will be so cheap they can transition to a developed economy with very little increase in emissions at all. Yaaas!
Well indeed, the solution to climate issues is science and technology, not cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Cutting consumption does absolutely nothing to improve the planet, as the rest of the planet intends to increase consumption not decrease it.
The way to solve climate problems is by ensuring we invest in clean consumption. Do so and you can have as much consumption as you like without hurting the planet (since anything times zero equals zero).
We can lead the way by investing in, developing and supporting clean technologies and the rest of the world will follow on that.
The madness of watermelon lunatics who pretend to be green but really just want to hurt people's consumption will do nothing for the environment.
Me and other Greens have been arguing for Britain to invest in new technology for decades, and people have told us we shouldn't do anything until China does.
Now China has done it and it's pretty much too late for Britain to take a lead on any of the relevant technology, because Britain let other countries get there first.
Just in the last year or two the opportunity to take a lead on small modular nuclear reactors has slipped through Britain's fingers. Unless Labour manage to dramatically turn this around, Britain will be paying other countries for the green energy technology they could have profited from.
So don't lecture me about green watermelons, thank you very much.
I thought the Greens opposed nuclear ?
Green party policy is anti-nuclear. Plenty of prominent Greens have been in favour. Some Greens have been equivocal, pointing out that nuclear is just too slow to build - something the small modular reactors might be better at.
I've heard Greens especially opposing the small modular reactors because it will be hard to stop them.
Imagine a small, safe, and cheap source of huge amounts of energy that could be run out of a production line, generating both clean power for the domestic market and £billions in exports. What a horrible problem to have, imagine how much economic growth could be driven by such technology.
And then you woke up.
And yet that is what Rolls Royce are working on right now.
The economic case for SMRs relies on them becoming mass production items. It's not ridiculous, but it's also not inevitable.
There’s also potentially a massive global market, and a massive first-mover advantage.
The Americans gave up after they could find a buyer, the British are still stalling - so that leaves, guess who, the Chinese, who already have pretty much a monopoly on solar and wind production.
There’s an opportunity for the UK to lead the world in something, and committing to buy a handful of them could prove to be one of the greatest investments the UK has made in decades. RR should offer the gov a stake in the project, if the order comes in for the first half a dozen.
A compulsory facial recognition database with ANPR cameras replaced with facial recognition cameras and a year inside for covering your face while driving would soon sort it.
Won't go down well in Guardian Towers though.
As ever, the question is what privacy we are willing to sacrifice for the greater good and will the other uses such a system might be put to by the government and its agencies be worse than allowing a small part of society to cause misery.to others.
Blair passed proceeds of crime legislation to allow the state to seize the receipts of drug dealing and terrorism. What we got was local councils bankrupting residents who pruned a protected tree without permission based on the imputed increased value of their house as a result of the tree no longer causing a light blocking nuisance.
Do you have a linky for that last claim?
Did @MrBedfordshire back this claim up, of someone pruning a TPO Tree being bankrupted after being pursued under Proceeds of Crime law?
I'd really like to see it, as I have never seen POCA used wrt TPO trees, and it is in my area of interest. Getting permission to prune is not difficult, and is free, and we treat damaging TPO trees as an attack on the system of maintaining the public environment, which is what it is.
The closest I am aware of was a millionaire scrote on Sandbanks who added £40k to the value of his property by destroying two TPO trees.
He got off lightly: all he got done for was £2700 fine, £15500 court costs, and the £40k profits he had made by illegally destroying the trees. That fine could have been £25k.
The interesting point here is not the amount but the fact that, as @MrBedfordshire mentioned, the council used POCA in a separate court case after the criminal trial and fine to seize further monies. I would suggest it sets a very dangerous precedent, whatever you might think about the actual case. Using this logic almost anything might be considered as falling under the scope of POCA.
Edit - it also seems very dodgy to me that they waited until 3 years after the original trial before pursuing him under POCA.
I think that's appropriate, but probably inadequate.
This is a rich individual cynically breaking the law because he thinks he's too important to need to obey it. For me it's in the same category as a developer who burns down a listed building because he doesn't want it there in his way.
But I think it needs a heavier punishment than just depriving him of his illegal profits; that's not deterrent enough.
I think the guy should have had a prison sentence as well, pour encourager les autres and deterring anyone else from doing it.
The important point on POCA here is that it needs to be appropriately applied, which is a matter of checks and balances being correct.
Reflecting, I can think of a similar case reported in2023 where the landowner went to jail. There was a case near Leominster where a farmer destroyed 70 trees in an SSI and seriously damaged a long stretch of the River Legg.
He went to prison for 12 months, and was made to pay £1.2m. Repeat offender. At root he thinks it's HIS environment, when in reality it is OURS.
For these types of criminals, imo it's only jail that deters, because they think they are upstanding citizens.
I don't disagree with you at all about that. And yes prison sentences and heavy fines would be appropriate. But just as the use of RIPA to spy on families for school placements was out of order and far from what had been intended by the original drafting of the legislation, so the use of POCA in this way is also way out of order.
You could easily get a situation where two identical crimes, one of which was done to generate increased value and one of which was simply because someone objected to having their light blocked with no fiancial gain, were punished to a completely different extent - one paying tens of thousands of pounds through POCA and one paying only the basic few hundred or thousand in the original criminal fine.
As an aside I found the arguments in favour of the man who destroyed the riverbanks particularly pernicious.
Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
The conventional wisdom was that poor countries like China and India would have to produce absolutely loads of carbon before they could get rich and clean like us. This was essentially apocalyptic for the climate, and my lecturers were talking like Preppers - store baked beans and build houses on top of mountains.
That's happening to an extent as their population and economy explodes. However, they are doing significantly better than expected which is great source of happiness for everyone in the 20s and 30s. By the time Africa gets to this stage, solar will be so cheap they can transition to a developed economy with very little increase in emissions at all. Yaaas!
Well indeed, the solution to climate issues is science and technology, not cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Cutting consumption does absolutely nothing to improve the planet, as the rest of the planet intends to increase consumption not decrease it.
The way to solve climate problems is by ensuring we invest in clean consumption. Do so and you can have as much consumption as you like without hurting the planet (since anything times zero equals zero).
We can lead the way by investing in, developing and supporting clean technologies and the rest of the world will follow on that.
The madness of watermelon lunatics who pretend to be green but really just want to hurt people's consumption will do nothing for the environment.
Me and other Greens have been arguing for Britain to invest in new technology for decades, and people have told us we shouldn't do anything until China does.
Now China has done it and it's pretty much too late for Britain to take a lead on any of the relevant technology, because Britain let other countries get there first.
Just in the last year or two the opportunity to take a lead on small modular nuclear reactors has slipped through Britain's fingers. Unless Labour manage to dramatically turn this around, Britain will be paying other countries for the green energy technology they could have profited from.
So don't lecture me about green watermelons, thank you very much.
I thought the Greens opposed nuclear ?
Green party policy is anti-nuclear. Plenty of prominent Greens have been in favour. Some Greens have been equivocal, pointing out that nuclear is just too slow to build - something the small modular reactors might be better at.
I've heard Greens especially opposing the small modular reactors because it will be hard to stop them.
Hard to start them, more like. Despite all the hype, I've yet to see any economic or environmental benefits for SMRs or indeed any concrete proposals for their installation. As far as I can see, while they, like nuclear fusion, may become useful energy sources in the long-term future, in the meantime they are at best an irrelevance and, at worst, a distraction from the more urgent need to generate clean electricity.
The opposition to them is interesting - quite a bit of cross over with the permanent officials preventing tidal ponds. Big Nuclear really doesn't like them.
The advantages of the small reactors are
1) Type certification - once you have the design certified, no amusing decade long investigations of the individual designs. 2) Experience - we have companies making and installing small reactors now. Submarines. The SMRs are a slightly bigger and more powerful version of those. Basically the size of the reactors the Americans use in their aircraft carriers. Which are derived from their submarine reactors. And there is a lot of joint design work on US/UK reactors. 3) Installation/Scaling - instead of having decades of construction, the individual SMRs can be trucked to the site (probably old nuclear plant) and individually brought on line.
This doesn't sound at all convincing to me. They still need a cooling water supply and need to be linked up to generation facilities. They still need to be refuelled at some point. You still need to dispose of the waste. They still need security. Having, say, four SMRs on a site inside of a single traditional core just seems to me to make the whole thing more complex. I'm very sceptical about this.
The waste is the whole reactor. Probably go with lifetime cores - no refuelling. The actual radioactive bit is surprisingly small.
They will almost certainly be sited on old nuclear plant sites, many as replacements for the original reactors. So cooling water is available. And they can be guarded by Wayne Couzen's ex colleagues who are already there.
Many of the problems of nuclear are down to each reactor being a different design - production is how to refine a design to high availability and reliability. See the experience of the US Navy with their reactors.
Surely the solution to this is simply to come up with a standard design for a conventional reactor rather than trying to repurpose designs that have a completely different use case?
Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
The conventional wisdom was that poor countries like China and India would have to produce absolutely loads of carbon before they could get rich and clean like us. This was essentially apocalyptic for the climate, and my lecturers were talking like Preppers - store baked beans and build houses on top of mountains.
That's happening to an extent as their population and economy explodes. However, they are doing significantly better than expected which is great source of happiness for everyone in the 20s and 30s. By the time Africa gets to this stage, solar will be so cheap they can transition to a developed economy with very little increase in emissions at all. Yaaas!
Well indeed, the solution to climate issues is science and technology, not cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Cutting consumption does absolutely nothing to improve the planet, as the rest of the planet intends to increase consumption not decrease it.
The way to solve climate problems is by ensuring we invest in clean consumption. Do so and you can have as much consumption as you like without hurting the planet (since anything times zero equals zero).
We can lead the way by investing in, developing and supporting clean technologies and the rest of the world will follow on that.
The madness of watermelon lunatics who pretend to be green but really just want to hurt people's consumption will do nothing for the environment.
Me and other Greens have been arguing for Britain to invest in new technology for decades, and people have told us we shouldn't do anything until China does.
Now China has done it and it's pretty much too late for Britain to take a lead on any of the relevant technology, because Britain let other countries get there first.
Just in the last year or two the opportunity to take a lead on small modular nuclear reactors has slipped through Britain's fingers. Unless Labour manage to dramatically turn this around, Britain will be paying other countries for the green energy technology they could have profited from.
So don't lecture me about green watermelons, thank you very much.
I thought the Greens opposed nuclear ?
Green party policy is anti-nuclear. Plenty of prominent Greens have been in favour. Some Greens have been equivocal, pointing out that nuclear is just too slow to build - something the small modular reactors might be better at.
I've heard Greens especially opposing the small modular reactors because it will be hard to stop them.
Hard to start them, more like. Despite all the hype, I've yet to see any economic or environmental benefits for SMRs or indeed any concrete proposals for their installation. As far as I can see, while they, like nuclear fusion, may become useful energy sources in the long-term future, in the meantime they are at best an irrelevance and, at worst, a distraction from the more urgent need to generate clean electricity.
Everything nuclear takes forever and costs loads more than planned. Or maybe everybody just lies at the start of the project to get it going. Either way, total dead end.
What I also notice is it's yet another energy source dependent on foreign supplies. Or is it?
A compulsory facial recognition database with ANPR cameras replaced with facial recognition cameras and a year inside for covering your face while driving would soon sort it.
Won't go down well in Guardian Towers though.
As ever, the question is what privacy we are willing to sacrifice for the greater good and will the other uses such a system might be put to by the government and its agencies be worse than allowing a small part of society to cause misery.to others.
Blair passed proceeds of crime legislation to allow the state to seize the receipts of drug dealing and terrorism. What we got was local councils bankrupting residents who pruned a protected tree without permission based on the imputed increased value of their house as a result of the tree no longer causing a light blocking nuisance.
Do you have a linky for that last claim?
Did @MrBedfordshire back this claim up, of someone pruning a TPO Tree being bankrupted after being pursued under Proceeds of Crime law?
I'd really like to see it, as I have never seen POCA used wrt TPO trees, and it is in my area of interest. Getting permission to prune is not difficult, and is free, and we treat damaging TPO trees as an attack on the system of maintaining the public environment, which is what it is.
The closest I am aware of was a millionaire scrote on Sandbanks who added £40k to the value of his property by destroying two TPO trees.
He got off lightly: all he got done for was £2700 fine, £15500 court costs, and the £40k profits he had made by illegally destroying the trees. That fine could have been £25k.
The interesting point here is not the amount but the fact that, as @MrBedfordshire mentioned, the council used POCA in a separate court case after the criminal trial and fine to seize further monies. I would suggest it sets a very dangerous precedent, whatever you might think about the actual case. Using this logic almost anything might be considered as falling under the scope of POCA.
Edit - it also seems very dodgy to me that they waited until 3 years after the original trial before pursuing him under POCA.
I think that's appropriate, but probably inadequate.
This is a rich individual cynically breaking the law because he thinks he's too important to need to obey it. For me it's in the same category as a developer who burns down a listed building because he doesn't want it there in his way.
But I think it needs a heavier punishment than just depriving him of his illegal profits; that's not deterrent enough.
I think the guy should have had a prison sentence as well, pour encourager les autres and deterring anyone else from doing it.
The important point on POCA here is that it needs to be appropriately applied, which is a matter of checks and balances being correct.
Reflecting, I can think of a similar case reported in2023 where the landowner went to jail. There was a case near Leominster where a farmer destroyed 70 trees in an SSI and seriously damaged a long stretch of the River Legg.
He went to prison for 12 months, and was made to pay £1.2m. Repeat offender. At root he thinks it's HIS environment, when in reality it is OURS.
For these types of criminals, imo it's only jail that deters, because they think they are upstanding citizens.
I don't disagree with you at all about that. And yes prison sentences and heavy fines would be appropriate. But just as the use of RIPA to spy on families for school placements was out of order and far from what had been intended by the original drafting of the legislation, so the use of POCA in this way is also way out of order.
You could easily get a situation where two identical crimes, one of which was done to generate increased value and one of which was simply because someone objected to having their light blocked with no fiancial gain, were punished to a completely different extent - one paying tens of thousands of pounds through POCA and one paying only the basic few hundred or thousand in the original criminal fine.
As an aside I found the arguments in favour of the man who destroyed the riverbanks particularly pernicious.
Yet the person being fined thousands through POCA is only losing the financial benefit they received as a consequence of breaking the law.
Both people are being treated equally in both circumstances, there is a punishment and there is a restitution to ensure they do not profit from the crime.
Having recently spent a few weeks in Poland and Estonia, I formed the impression that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has transformed neighbouring countries in ways that US and western governments completely fail to grasp. Two years of war have radically reshaped expectations.
Do Biden, Scholz, et al. think that allowing Russia to ravage Ukraine with impunity will work out well for the Euro-Atlantic institutions that undergird their own power and prestige?..
No.
A gentle reminder that it's the GOP that recently held up US military aid to Ukraine for nearly six months.
It's entirely appropriate to criticise Biden for being overcautious, and a less than fully committed response to the Russian invasion. But not at all so from the POV of the US Republican Party.
Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
The conventional wisdom was that poor countries like China and India would have to produce absolutely loads of carbon before they could get rich and clean like us. This was essentially apocalyptic for the climate, and my lecturers were talking like Preppers - store baked beans and build houses on top of mountains.
That's happening to an extent as their population and economy explodes. However, they are doing significantly better than expected which is great source of happiness for everyone in the 20s and 30s. By the time Africa gets to this stage, solar will be so cheap they can transition to a developed economy with very little increase in emissions at all. Yaaas!
Well indeed, the solution to climate issues is science and technology, not cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Cutting consumption does absolutely nothing to improve the planet, as the rest of the planet intends to increase consumption not decrease it.
The way to solve climate problems is by ensuring we invest in clean consumption. Do so and you can have as much consumption as you like without hurting the planet (since anything times zero equals zero).
We can lead the way by investing in, developing and supporting clean technologies and the rest of the world will follow on that.
The madness of watermelon lunatics who pretend to be green but really just want to hurt people's consumption will do nothing for the environment.
Me and other Greens have been arguing for Britain to invest in new technology for decades, and people have told us we shouldn't do anything until China does.
Now China has done it and it's pretty much too late for Britain to take a lead on any of the relevant technology, because Britain let other countries get there first.
Just in the last year or two the opportunity to take a lead on small modular nuclear reactors has slipped through Britain's fingers. Unless Labour manage to dramatically turn this around, Britain will be paying other countries for the green energy technology they could have profited from.
So don't lecture me about green watermelons, thank you very much.
I thought the Greens opposed nuclear ?
Green party policy is anti-nuclear. Plenty of prominent Greens have been in favour. Some Greens have been equivocal, pointing out that nuclear is just too slow to build - something the small modular reactors might be better at.
I've heard Greens especially opposing the small modular reactors because it will be hard to stop them.
Imagine a small, safe, and cheap source of huge amounts of energy that could be run out of a production line, generating both clean power for the domestic market and £billions in exports. What a horrible problem to have, imagine how much economic growth could be driven by such technology.
And then you woke up.
And yet that is what Rolls Royce are working on right now.
People are working on all sorts of things. This does not mean they are automatically going to solve all our problems or even have much chance of becoming commercially practicable within a useful time frame.
There is an urgent need to decarbonise our electricity production, and we already know how to do it: through a combination of wind, solar, hydroelectric and traditional nuclear generation combined with storage and demand management. These are what we need to focus on. We simply don't have time left to rely on the pie-in-the-sky stuff.
And we're already doing it.
The UK has already eliminated coal.
The UK is well down the path to eliminating gas too now.
It'll take time to finish the job, and we need to invest especially in pylons and have the rollout of batteries/EVs continue (which are becoming cheaper year on year) but we're doing the right thing already and need to just keep calm and carry on with it.
And encourage the likes of China to belatedly catch up with us. Which they're not doing yet.
China is not only catching up; China currently has the pedal to the metal and and is just about to shoot past us. The country has industrialised in about a quarter the time taken by the UK and will very soon overtake on decarbonisation. We are complacent at our peril.
That is completely untrue. China is miles behind us and nowhere near decarbonising at the same rate as us.
They're still getting most of their energy from coal. We are getting the overwhelming majority of our energy from zero-carbon sources already.
However we should continue to ignore those who oppose development of clean technologies as we have done for years, whether they be watermelon greens or pro-Putin fossils.
A compulsory facial recognition database with ANPR cameras replaced with facial recognition cameras and a year inside for covering your face while driving would soon sort it.
Won't go down well in Guardian Towers though.
As ever, the question is what privacy we are willing to sacrifice for the greater good and will the other uses such a system might be put to by the government and its agencies be worse than allowing a small part of society to cause misery.to others.
Blair passed proceeds of crime legislation to allow the state to seize the receipts of drug dealing and terrorism. What we got was local councils bankrupting residents who pruned a protected tree without permission based on the imputed increased value of their house as a result of the tree no longer causing a light blocking nuisance.
Do you have a linky for that last claim?
Did @MrBedfordshire back this claim up, of someone pruning a TPO Tree being bankrupted after being pursued under Proceeds of Crime law?
I'd really like to see it, as I have never seen POCA used wrt TPO trees, and it is in my area of interest. Getting permission to prune is not difficult, and is free, and we treat damaging TPO trees as an attack on the system of maintaining the public environment, which is what it is.
The closest I am aware of was a millionaire scrote on Sandbanks who added £40k to the value of his property by destroying two TPO trees.
He got off lightly: all he got done for was £2700 fine, £15500 court costs, and the £40k profits he had made by illegally destroying the trees. That fine could have been £25k.
The interesting point here is not the amount but the fact that, as @MrBedfordshire mentioned, the council used POCA in a separate court case after the criminal trial and fine to seize further monies. I would suggest it sets a very dangerous precedent, whatever you might think about the actual case. Using this logic almost anything might be considered as falling under the scope of POCA.
Edit - it also seems very dodgy to me that they waited until 3 years after the original trial before pursuing him under POCA.
I think that's appropriate, but probably inadequate.
This is a rich individual cynically breaking the law because he thinks he's too important to need to obey it. For me it's in the same category as a developer who burns down a listed building because he doesn't want it there in his way.
But I think it needs a heavier punishment than just depriving him of his illegal profits; that's not deterrent enough.
I think the guy should have had a prison sentence as well, pour encourager les autres and deterring anyone else from doing it.
The important point on POCA here is that it needs to be appropriately applied, which is a matter of checks and balances being correct.
Reflecting, I can think of a similar case reported in2023 where the landowner went to jail. There was a case near Leominster where a farmer destroyed 70 trees in an SSI and seriously damaged a long stretch of the River Legg.
He went to prison for 12 months, and was made to pay £1.2m. Repeat offender. At root he thinks it's HIS environment, when in reality it is OURS.
For these types of criminals, imo it's only jail that deters, because they think they are upstanding citizens.
I don't disagree with you at all about that. And yes prison sentences and heavy fines would be appropriate. But just as the use of RIPA to spy on families for school placements was out of order and far from what had been intended by the original drafting of the legislation, so the use of POCA in this way is also way out of order.
You could easily get a situation where two identical crimes, one of which was done to generate increased value and one of which was simply because someone objected to having their light blocked with no fiancial gain, were punished to a completely different extent - one paying tens of thousands of pounds through POCA and one paying only the basic few hundred or thousand in the original criminal fine.
As an aside I found the arguments in favour of the man who destroyed the riverbanks particularly pernicious.
I'm with you on RIPA. I have been very vocal about that in the past.
Becca Lyon from @savechildrenuk : "It's an outrage 440,000 families are denied vital support because of the two-child limit, a rise of over 30,000 since last year
“The cruel two-child limit should be scrapped immediately to prevent families facing hardship and destitution".
I know this is a controversial take but don’t have kids if you cannot afford them.
Great, but that doesn't help the kid growing up in poverty who will likely end up costing the state much more than the savings from the two-child limit.
It's a bit like early release and employment for violent criminals. Feels wrong, but it's right. We need a government which can take a step back from a Daily Mail headline.
(Also - from what we can see from the nosediving TFR, very few couples consider kids affordable at the moment.)
Although arguably handing out benefits for every new child just means more children will grow up in poverty as it incentivises those who can't afford children to have them. Tough for those who are already born, but leads to less child poverty in the future.
Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
The conventional wisdom was that poor countries like China and India would have to produce absolutely loads of carbon before they could get rich and clean like us. This was essentially apocalyptic for the climate, and my lecturers were talking like Preppers - store baked beans and build houses on top of mountains.
That's happening to an extent as their population and economy explodes. However, they are doing significantly better than expected which is great source of happiness for everyone in the 20s and 30s. By the time Africa gets to this stage, solar will be so cheap they can transition to a developed economy with very little increase in emissions at all. Yaaas!
Well indeed, the solution to climate issues is science and technology, not cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Cutting consumption does absolutely nothing to improve the planet, as the rest of the planet intends to increase consumption not decrease it.
The way to solve climate problems is by ensuring we invest in clean consumption. Do so and you can have as much consumption as you like without hurting the planet (since anything times zero equals zero).
We can lead the way by investing in, developing and supporting clean technologies and the rest of the world will follow on that.
The madness of watermelon lunatics who pretend to be green but really just want to hurt people's consumption will do nothing for the environment.
Me and other Greens have been arguing for Britain to invest in new technology for decades, and people have told us we shouldn't do anything until China does.
Now China has done it and it's pretty much too late for Britain to take a lead on any of the relevant technology, because Britain let other countries get there first.
Just in the last year or two the opportunity to take a lead on small modular nuclear reactors has slipped through Britain's fingers. Unless Labour manage to dramatically turn this around, Britain will be paying other countries for the green energy technology they could have profited from.
So don't lecture me about green watermelons, thank you very much.
I thought the Greens opposed nuclear ?
Green party policy is anti-nuclear. Plenty of prominent Greens have been in favour. Some Greens have been equivocal, pointing out that nuclear is just too slow to build - something the small modular reactors might be better at.
I've heard Greens especially opposing the small modular reactors because it will be hard to stop them.
Imagine a small, safe, and cheap source of huge amounts of energy that could be run out of a production line, generating both clean power for the domestic market and £billions in exports. What a horrible problem to have, imagine how much economic growth could be driven by such technology.
And then you woke up.
And yet that is what Rolls Royce are working on right now.
People are working on all sorts of things. This does not mean they are automatically going to solve all our problems or even have much chance of becoming commercially practicable within a useful time frame.
There is an urgent need to decarbonise our electricity production, and we already know how to do it: through a combination of wind, solar, hydroelectric and traditional nuclear generation combined with storage and demand management. These are what we need to focus on. We simply don't have time left to rely on the pie-in-the-sky stuff.
And we're already doing it.
The UK has already eliminated coal.
The UK is well down the path to eliminating gas too now.
It'll take time to finish the job, and we need to invest especially in pylons and have the rollout of batteries/EVs continue (which are becoming cheaper year on year) but we're doing the right thing already and need to just keep calm and carry on with it.
And encourage the likes of China to belatedly catch up with us. Which they're not doing yet.
China is not only catching up; China currently has the pedal to the metal and and is just about to shoot past us. The country has industrialised in about a quarter the time taken by the UK and will very soon overtake on decarbonisation. We are complacent at our peril.
That is completely untrue. China is miles behind us and nowhere near decarbonising at the same rate as us.
They're still getting most of their energy from coal. We are getting the overwhelming majority of our energy from zero-carbon sources already.
The amount of solar power being installed in China at the moment is insane. The only reason they are using Coal at the moment is because China operates on a use whatever they can basis so is happy to use Coal if it's cheaper than the other options.
I suspect coal will disappear fairly quickly as more and more solar gets installed.
Having recently spent a few weeks in Poland and Estonia, I formed the impression that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has transformed neighbouring countries in ways that US and western governments completely fail to grasp. Two years of war have radically reshaped expectations.
Do Biden, Scholz, et al. think that allowing Russia to ravage Ukraine with impunity will work out well for the Euro-Atlantic institutions that undergird their own power and prestige?..
No.
A gentle reminder that it's the GOP that recently held up US military aid to Ukraine for nearly six months.
It's entirely appropriate to criticise Biden for being overcautious, and a less than fully committed response to the Russian invasion. But not at all so from the POV of the US Republican Party.
This is just a way to absolve the administration that has actually been making decisions of responsibility.
The broad policy of sitting back and minimally arming Ukraine was set by Biden, not the Republicans.
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
True but it would be churlish and wrong to put the achievements of these two 'best of breed' Englishmen down to that.
Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
The conventional wisdom was that poor countries like China and India would have to produce absolutely loads of carbon before they could get rich and clean like us. This was essentially apocalyptic for the climate, and my lecturers were talking like Preppers - store baked beans and build houses on top of mountains.
That's happening to an extent as their population and economy explodes. However, they are doing significantly better than expected which is great source of happiness for everyone in the 20s and 30s. By the time Africa gets to this stage, solar will be so cheap they can transition to a developed economy with very little increase in emissions at all. Yaaas!
Well indeed, the solution to climate issues is science and technology, not cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Cutting consumption does absolutely nothing to improve the planet, as the rest of the planet intends to increase consumption not decrease it.
The way to solve climate problems is by ensuring we invest in clean consumption. Do so and you can have as much consumption as you like without hurting the planet (since anything times zero equals zero).
We can lead the way by investing in, developing and supporting clean technologies and the rest of the world will follow on that.
The madness of watermelon lunatics who pretend to be green but really just want to hurt people's consumption will do nothing for the environment.
Me and other Greens have been arguing for Britain to invest in new technology for decades, and people have told us we shouldn't do anything until China does.
Now China has done it and it's pretty much too late for Britain to take a lead on any of the relevant technology, because Britain let other countries get there first.
Just in the last year or two the opportunity to take a lead on small modular nuclear reactors has slipped through Britain's fingers. Unless Labour manage to dramatically turn this around, Britain will be paying other countries for the green energy technology they could have profited from.
So don't lecture me about green watermelons, thank you very much.
I thought the Greens opposed nuclear ?
Green party policy is anti-nuclear. Plenty of prominent Greens have been in favour. Some Greens have been equivocal, pointing out that nuclear is just too slow to build - something the small modular reactors might be better at.
I've heard Greens especially opposing the small modular reactors because it will be hard to stop them.
Imagine a small, safe, and cheap source of huge amounts of energy that could be run out of a production line, generating both clean power for the domestic market and £billions in exports. What a horrible problem to have, imagine how much economic growth could be driven by such technology.
And then you woke up.
And yet that is what Rolls Royce are working on right now.
People are working on all sorts of things. This does not mean they are automatically going to solve all our problems or even have much chance of becoming commercially practicable within a useful time frame.
There is an urgent need to decarbonise our electricity production, and we already know how to do it: through a combination of wind, solar, hydroelectric and traditional nuclear generation combined with storage and demand management. These are what we need to focus on. We simply don't have time left to rely on the pie-in-the-sky stuff.
And we're already doing it.
The UK has already eliminated coal.
The UK is well down the path to eliminating gas too now.
It'll take time to finish the job, and we need to invest especially in pylons and have the rollout of batteries/EVs continue (which are becoming cheaper year on year) but we're doing the right thing already and need to just keep calm and carry on with it.
And encourage the likes of China to belatedly catch up with us. Which they're not doing yet.
China is not only catching up; China currently has the pedal to the metal and and is just about to shoot past us. The country has industrialised in about a quarter the time taken by the UK and will very soon overtake on decarbonisation. We are complacent at our peril.
That is completely untrue. China is miles behind us and nowhere near decarbonising at the same rate as us.
They're still getting most of their energy from coal. We are getting the overwhelming majority of our energy from zero-carbon sources already.
The amount of solar power being installed in China at the moment is insane. The only reason they are using Coal at the moment is because China operates on a use whatever they can basis so is happy to use Coal if it's cheaper than the other options.
I suspect coal will disappear fairly quickly as more and more solar gets installed.
That's a good thing and is them catching up with what we did a decade ago.
Its not them overtaking us.
I welcome them catching up with us on this. Its a good thing.
Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
The conventional wisdom was that poor countries like China and India would have to produce absolutely loads of carbon before they could get rich and clean like us. This was essentially apocalyptic for the climate, and my lecturers were talking like Preppers - store baked beans and build houses on top of mountains.
That's happening to an extent as their population and economy explodes. However, they are doing significantly better than expected which is great source of happiness for everyone in the 20s and 30s. By the time Africa gets to this stage, solar will be so cheap they can transition to a developed economy with very little increase in emissions at all. Yaaas!
Well indeed, the solution to climate issues is science and technology, not cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Cutting consumption does absolutely nothing to improve the planet, as the rest of the planet intends to increase consumption not decrease it.
The way to solve climate problems is by ensuring we invest in clean consumption. Do so and you can have as much consumption as you like without hurting the planet (since anything times zero equals zero).
We can lead the way by investing in, developing and supporting clean technologies and the rest of the world will follow on that.
The madness of watermelon lunatics who pretend to be green but really just want to hurt people's consumption will do nothing for the environment.
Me and other Greens have been arguing for Britain to invest in new technology for decades, and people have told us we shouldn't do anything until China does.
Now China has done it and it's pretty much too late for Britain to take a lead on any of the relevant technology, because Britain let other countries get there first.
Just in the last year or two the opportunity to take a lead on small modular nuclear reactors has slipped through Britain's fingers. Unless Labour manage to dramatically turn this around, Britain will be paying other countries for the green energy technology they could have profited from.
So don't lecture me about green watermelons, thank you very much.
I thought the Greens opposed nuclear ?
Green party policy is anti-nuclear. Plenty of prominent Greens have been in favour. Some Greens have been equivocal, pointing out that nuclear is just too slow to build - something the small modular reactors might be better at.
I've heard Greens especially opposing the small modular reactors because it will be hard to stop them.
Hard to start them, more like. Despite all the hype, I've yet to see any economic or environmental benefits for SMRs or indeed any concrete proposals for their installation. As far as I can see, while they, like nuclear fusion, may become useful energy sources in the long-term future, in the meantime they are at best an irrelevance and, at worst, a distraction from the more urgent need to generate clean electricity.
Everything nuclear takes forever and costs loads more than planned. Or maybe everybody just lies at the start of the project to get it going. Either way, total dead end.
A similar argument was made about the practicality of Musk's plans to industrialise production lines for space vehicles (and in particular rocket motors). Which also used to take forever and cost loads more than planned.
The argument for SMRs is that it's possible to build production lines for a standard product, which once certified can be repeated at much lower cost. It's not an obviously absurd argument.
Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
The conventional wisdom was that poor countries like China and India would have to produce absolutely loads of carbon before they could get rich and clean like us. This was essentially apocalyptic for the climate, and my lecturers were talking like Preppers - store baked beans and build houses on top of mountains.
That's happening to an extent as their population and economy explodes. However, they are doing significantly better than expected which is great source of happiness for everyone in the 20s and 30s. By the time Africa gets to this stage, solar will be so cheap they can transition to a developed economy with very little increase in emissions at all. Yaaas!
Well indeed, the solution to climate issues is science and technology, not cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Cutting consumption does absolutely nothing to improve the planet, as the rest of the planet intends to increase consumption not decrease it.
The way to solve climate problems is by ensuring we invest in clean consumption. Do so and you can have as much consumption as you like without hurting the planet (since anything times zero equals zero).
We can lead the way by investing in, developing and supporting clean technologies and the rest of the world will follow on that.
The madness of watermelon lunatics who pretend to be green but really just want to hurt people's consumption will do nothing for the environment.
Me and other Greens have been arguing for Britain to invest in new technology for decades, and people have told us we shouldn't do anything until China does.
Now China has done it and it's pretty much too late for Britain to take a lead on any of the relevant technology, because Britain let other countries get there first.
Just in the last year or two the opportunity to take a lead on small modular nuclear reactors has slipped through Britain's fingers. Unless Labour manage to dramatically turn this around, Britain will be paying other countries for the green energy technology they could have profited from.
So don't lecture me about green watermelons, thank you very much.
I thought the Greens opposed nuclear ?
Green party policy is anti-nuclear. Plenty of prominent Greens have been in favour. Some Greens have been equivocal, pointing out that nuclear is just too slow to build - something the small modular reactors might be better at.
I've heard Greens especially opposing the small modular reactors because it will be hard to stop them.
Hard to start them, more like. Despite all the hype, I've yet to see any economic or environmental benefits for SMRs or indeed any concrete proposals for their installation. As far as I can see, while they, like nuclear fusion, may become useful energy sources in the long-term future, in the meantime they are at best an irrelevance and, at worst, a distraction from the more urgent need to generate clean electricity.
The opposition to them is interesting - quite a bit of cross over with the permanent officials preventing tidal ponds. Big Nuclear really doesn't like them.
The advantages of the small reactors are
1) Type certification - once you have the design certified, no amusing decade long investigations of the individual designs. 2) Experience - we have companies making and installing small reactors now. Submarines. The SMRs are a slightly bigger and more powerful version of those. Basically the size of the reactors the Americans use in their aircraft carriers. Which are derived from their submarine reactors. And there is a lot of joint design work on US/UK reactors. 3) Installation/Scaling - instead of having decades of construction, the individual SMRs can be trucked to the site (probably old nuclear plant) and individually brought on line.
This doesn't sound at all convincing to me. They still need a cooling water supply and need to be linked up to generation facilities. They still need to be refuelled at some point. You still need to dispose of the waste. They still need security. Having, say, four SMRs on a site inside of a single traditional core just seems to me to make the whole thing more complex. I'm very sceptical about this.
The waste is the whole reactor. Probably go with lifetime cores - no refuelling. The actual radioactive bit is surprisingly small.
They will almost certainly be sited on old nuclear plant sites, many as replacements for the original reactors. So cooling water is available. And they can be guarded by Wayne Couzen's ex colleagues who are already there.
Many of the problems of nuclear are down to each reactor being a different design - production is how to refine a design to high availability and reliability. See the experience of the US Navy with their reactors.
Surely the solution to this is simply to come up with a standard design for a conventional reactor rather than trying to repurpose designs that have a completely different use case?
The benefit of the SMR is that you build them in a factory rather than building them on site. That knocks the price down by 50% before you even look at the benefits of a standard repeatable design...
Sunak and Hunt are serious people and have just left the Conservative party to its worst defeat in its history. I expect most Tory members and many Tory MPs will first be looking for a leader who can win back some voters who went to ReformUK while also holding onto almost all who stayed Conservative on 4th July.
Braverman may do the former but not the latter, Badenoch could do both. Tugendhat is a serious candidate who would hold most current Tory voters and maybe win back some lost to the LDs but he wouldn't win back any lost to Reform and could leak further to Farage
Whilst not disagreeing with your analysis of what each contender would achieve regarding lost voters to Reform and LDs I do think it unfair to blame Sunak and Hunt. I can't think of much Hunt did wrong and although Sunak led a poor campaign he was handed a hospital pass.
For me the blame lays squarely with Boris. I accept that the Tories were probably going to lose anyway after so long in power, but to lose so badly is down to Boris (and Boris came about because of Brexit).
On another note prior to the election you kept wanting to add Reform to the Tory count presuming they would come back to the fold and still believe Reform voters are ex Tories. Lots are, but lots aren't. They are disaffected voters from all parties. Something the LDs used to gain a lot from. During our (LD) knocking up in Guildford of 'Ours' and 'Probables' we came across a not inconsiderable number who voted Reform. So people who said they were voting LD in a LD target and went and voted Reform.
You can not add the Reform vote to the Tory count.
No they lost so badly because of Truss, it was her budget disaster and the consequent surge in interest rates and mortgage repayments that collapsed the Tories to around 20%. Under Boris even after partygate the Conservatives were still around 30%. Hence Truss lost her seat.
I disagree. You can't blame it all on Truss. It was an ongoing disaster. And why did Truss happen? Truss wouldn't have been an event if not for Boris. It is Boris that caused the scenario that allowed for the Truss disaster. It all goes back to Boris and Brexit. Yes the Tories would still have lost, just because, but he was the catalyst that started off the big decline.
Re the percentage you quote, these are misleading. The Tories dropped their vote from 2019 to 2024. They had to go somewhere. But these aren't Tories these are the floaters that when a party is doing well are picked up (Tories in 2019) and are lost when they are doing badly (Tories 2024). They don't belong to the Tories, they belong to whoever is popular at the time, or picking up the none of the other vote.
Had Boris remained PM Truss would never have become PM, Sunak would have stayed Chancellor not Kwarteng and the Conservatives would probably have got 30-35% on 4th July and over 200 seats.
The fact the vast majority of the Reform vote came from the Tories shows they are mainly rightwingers, certainly on social issues
But Boris couldn't remain because of his behaviour, so he is the catalyst for everything that happened.
And to assure that because the votes went from the Tories to Reform shows they are right-wingers is not correct. They are floaters or disaffected. By the same logic you are then assuming all those that voted Labour are socialist, but clearly lots used to vote Tory so that is not true. Equally when the LDs poll high it is daft to assume they are all Liberals. They aren't. They are people lending their vote.
Having recently spent a few weeks in Poland and Estonia, I formed the impression that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has transformed neighbouring countries in ways that US and western governments completely fail to grasp. Two years of war have radically reshaped expectations.
Do Biden, Scholz, et al. think that allowing Russia to ravage Ukraine with impunity will work out well for the Euro-Atlantic institutions that undergird their own power and prestige?..
No.
A gentle reminder that it's the GOP that recently held up US military aid to Ukraine for nearly six months.
It's entirely appropriate to criticise Biden for being overcautious, and a less than fully committed response to the Russian invasion. But not at all so from the POV of the US Republican Party.
This is just a way to absolve the administration that has actually been making decisions of responsibility.
The broad policy of sitting back and minimally arming Ukraine was set by Biden, not the Republicans.
Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
The conventional wisdom was that poor countries like China and India would have to produce absolutely loads of carbon before they could get rich and clean like us. This was essentially apocalyptic for the climate, and my lecturers were talking like Preppers - store baked beans and build houses on top of mountains.
That's happening to an extent as their population and economy explodes. However, they are doing significantly better than expected which is great source of happiness for everyone in the 20s and 30s. By the time Africa gets to this stage, solar will be so cheap they can transition to a developed economy with very little increase in emissions at all. Yaaas!
Well indeed, the solution to climate issues is science and technology, not cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Cutting consumption does absolutely nothing to improve the planet, as the rest of the planet intends to increase consumption not decrease it.
The way to solve climate problems is by ensuring we invest in clean consumption. Do so and you can have as much consumption as you like without hurting the planet (since anything times zero equals zero).
We can lead the way by investing in, developing and supporting clean technologies and the rest of the world will follow on that.
The madness of watermelon lunatics who pretend to be green but really just want to hurt people's consumption will do nothing for the environment.
Me and other Greens have been arguing for Britain to invest in new technology for decades, and people have told us we shouldn't do anything until China does.
Now China has done it and it's pretty much too late for Britain to take a lead on any of the relevant technology, because Britain let other countries get there first.
Just in the last year or two the opportunity to take a lead on small modular nuclear reactors has slipped through Britain's fingers. Unless Labour manage to dramatically turn this around, Britain will be paying other countries for the green energy technology they could have profited from.
So don't lecture me about green watermelons, thank you very much.
I thought the Greens opposed nuclear ?
Green party policy is anti-nuclear. Plenty of prominent Greens have been in favour. Some Greens have been equivocal, pointing out that nuclear is just too slow to build - something the small modular reactors might be better at.
I've heard Greens especially opposing the small modular reactors because it will be hard to stop them.
Imagine a small, safe, and cheap source of huge amounts of energy that could be run out of a production line, generating both clean power for the domestic market and £billions in exports. What a horrible problem to have, imagine how much economic growth could be driven by such technology.
And then you woke up.
And yet that is what Rolls Royce are working on right now.
The economic case for SMRs relies on them becoming mass production items. It's not ridiculous, but it's also not inevitable.
There’s also potentially a massive global market, and a massive first-mover advantage.
The Americans gave up after they could find a buyer, the British are still stalling - so that leaves, guess who, the Chinese, who already have pretty much a monopoly on solar and wind production.
There’s an opportunity for the UK to lead the world in something, and committing to buy a handful of them could prove to be one of the greatest investments the UK has made in decades. RR should offer the gov a stake in the project, if the order comes in for the first half a dozen.
And possibly the S Koreans, who are currently dominating the market for new conventional reactors. Which they build for about a quarter of the cost of ours, and more or less on time.
Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
The conventional wisdom was that poor countries like China and India would have to produce absolutely loads of carbon before they could get rich and clean like us. This was essentially apocalyptic for the climate, and my lecturers were talking like Preppers - store baked beans and build houses on top of mountains.
That's happening to an extent as their population and economy explodes. However, they are doing significantly better than expected which is great source of happiness for everyone in the 20s and 30s. By the time Africa gets to this stage, solar will be so cheap they can transition to a developed economy with very little increase in emissions at all. Yaaas!
Well indeed, the solution to climate issues is science and technology, not cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Cutting consumption does absolutely nothing to improve the planet, as the rest of the planet intends to increase consumption not decrease it.
The way to solve climate problems is by ensuring we invest in clean consumption. Do so and you can have as much consumption as you like without hurting the planet (since anything times zero equals zero).
We can lead the way by investing in, developing and supporting clean technologies and the rest of the world will follow on that.
The madness of watermelon lunatics who pretend to be green but really just want to hurt people's consumption will do nothing for the environment.
Me and other Greens have been arguing for Britain to invest in new technology for decades, and people have told us we shouldn't do anything until China does.
Now China has done it and it's pretty much too late for Britain to take a lead on any of the relevant technology, because Britain let other countries get there first.
Just in the last year or two the opportunity to take a lead on small modular nuclear reactors has slipped through Britain's fingers. Unless Labour manage to dramatically turn this around, Britain will be paying other countries for the green energy technology they could have profited from.
So don't lecture me about green watermelons, thank you very much.
I thought the Greens opposed nuclear ?
Green party policy is anti-nuclear. Plenty of prominent Greens have been in favour. Some Greens have been equivocal, pointing out that nuclear is just too slow to build - something the small modular reactors might be better at.
I've heard Greens especially opposing the small modular reactors because it will be hard to stop them.
Hard to start them, more like. Despite all the hype, I've yet to see any economic or environmental benefits for SMRs or indeed any concrete proposals for their installation. As far as I can see, while they, like nuclear fusion, may become useful energy sources in the long-term future, in the meantime they are at best an irrelevance and, at worst, a distraction from the more urgent need to generate clean electricity.
Everything nuclear takes forever and costs loads more than planned. Or maybe everybody just lies at the start of the project to get it going. Either way, total dead end.
A similar argument was made about the practicality of Musk's plans to industrialise production lines for space vehicles (and in particular rocket motors). Which also used to take forever and cost loads more than planned.
The argument for SMRs is that it's possible to build production lines for a standard product, which once certified can be repeated at much lower cost. It's not an obviously absurd argument.
That’s a great analogy Sir, well done.
Imagine if we could do to the price of electricity, what SpaceX has done to the price of rocket launches.
One would have hoped that Boris lover Owls would have left the stage after the SKS Fans were vindicated. But no. He drones on and on regardless.
What happened to @Mexicanpete ? Is he still predicting a 1992-style Tory shock win with the certainty of the tides on here every bloody night?
Not your call this is not yours and Tory Sunils site.
Droning on about the 33.7% Lab vote or the Blue Tories plans to hand chunks of the NHS to their private health donors is here to stay if you dont like it
Swivel
It took the Labour party to create the NHS in defiance of Tory wishes, it just takes Wes and the Labour Party to destroy it with their new Tory supporters like you and Sunil cheering on.
Having recently spent a few weeks in Poland and Estonia, I formed the impression that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has transformed neighbouring countries in ways that US and western governments completely fail to grasp. Two years of war have radically reshaped expectations.
Do Biden, Scholz, et al. think that allowing Russia to ravage Ukraine with impunity will work out well for the Euro-Atlantic institutions that undergird their own power and prestige?..
No.
A gentle reminder that it's the GOP that recently held up US military aid to Ukraine for nearly six months.
It's entirely appropriate to criticise Biden for being overcautious, and a less than fully committed response to the Russian invasion. But not at all so from the POV of the US Republican Party.
This is just a way to absolve the administration that has actually been making decisions of responsibility.
The broad policy of sitting back and minimally arming Ukraine was set by Biden, not the Republicans.
That's just a way to absolve trump's GOP, which want to surrender Ukraine to Russia.
Sunak and Hunt are serious people and have just left the Conservative party to its worst defeat in its history. I expect most Tory members and many Tory MPs will first be looking for a leader who can win back some voters who went to ReformUK while also holding onto almost all who stayed Conservative on 4th July.
Braverman may do the former but not the latter, Badenoch could do both. Tugendhat is a serious candidate who would hold most current Tory voters and maybe win back some lost to the LDs but he wouldn't win back any lost to Reform and could leak further to Farage
Whilst not disagreeing with your analysis of what each contender would achieve regarding lost voters to Reform and LDs I do think it unfair to blame Sunak and Hunt. I can't think of much Hunt did wrong and although Sunak led a poor campaign he was handed a hospital pass.
For me the blame lays squarely with Boris. I accept that the Tories were probably going to lose anyway after so long in power, but to lose so badly is down to Boris (and Boris came about because of Brexit).
On another note prior to the election you kept wanting to add Reform to the Tory count presuming they would come back to the fold and still believe Reform voters are ex Tories. Lots are, but lots aren't. They are disaffected voters from all parties. Something the LDs used to gain a lot from. During our (LD) knocking up in Guildford of 'Ours' and 'Probables' we came across a not inconsiderable number who voted Reform. So people who said they were voting LD in a LD target and went and voted Reform.
You can not add the Reform vote to the Tory count.
No they lost so badly because of Truss, it was her budget disaster and the consequent surge in interest rates and mortgage repayments that collapsed the Tories to around 20%. Under Boris even after partygate the Conservatives were still around 30%. Hence Truss lost her seat.
I disagree. You can't blame it all on Truss. It was an ongoing disaster. And why did Truss happen? Truss wouldn't have been an event if not for Boris. It is Boris that caused the scenario that allowed for the Truss disaster. It all goes back to Boris and Brexit. Yes the Tories would still have lost, just because, but he was the catalyst that started off the big decline.
Re the percentage you quote, these are misleading. The Tories dropped their vote from 2019 to 2024. They had to go somewhere. But these aren't Tories these are the floaters that when a party is doing well are picked up (Tories in 2019) and are lost when they are doing badly (Tories 2024). They don't belong to the Tories, they belong to whoever is popular at the time, or picking up the none of the other vote.
Why didn't these floating voters go to Labour?
They are mainly disaffected. A plague on all your houses.
Having recently spent a few weeks in Poland and Estonia, I formed the impression that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has transformed neighbouring countries in ways that US and western governments completely fail to grasp. Two years of war have radically reshaped expectations.
Do Biden, Scholz, et al. think that allowing Russia to ravage Ukraine with impunity will work out well for the Euro-Atlantic institutions that undergird their own power and prestige?..
No.
A gentle reminder that it's the GOP that recently held up US military aid to Ukraine for nearly six months.
It's entirely appropriate to criticise Biden for being overcautious, and a less than fully committed response to the Russian invasion. But not at all so from the POV of the US Republican Party.
This is just a way to absolve the administration that has actually been making decisions of responsibility.
The broad policy of sitting back and minimally arming Ukraine was set by Biden, not the Republicans.
Biden has given a lot of weapons to Ukraine.
Opposed by Trump and his wing of the GOP.
You're a Putinist shill if you want Trump's policy for Ukraine.
Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
The conventional wisdom was that poor countries like China and India would have to produce absolutely loads of carbon before they could get rich and clean like us. This was essentially apocalyptic for the climate, and my lecturers were talking like Preppers - store baked beans and build houses on top of mountains.
That's happening to an extent as their population and economy explodes. However, they are doing significantly better than expected which is great source of happiness for everyone in the 20s and 30s. By the time Africa gets to this stage, solar will be so cheap they can transition to a developed economy with very little increase in emissions at all. Yaaas!
Well indeed, the solution to climate issues is science and technology, not cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Cutting consumption does absolutely nothing to improve the planet, as the rest of the planet intends to increase consumption not decrease it.
The way to solve climate problems is by ensuring we invest in clean consumption. Do so and you can have as much consumption as you like without hurting the planet (since anything times zero equals zero).
We can lead the way by investing in, developing and supporting clean technologies and the rest of the world will follow on that.
The madness of watermelon lunatics who pretend to be green but really just want to hurt people's consumption will do nothing for the environment.
Me and other Greens have been arguing for Britain to invest in new technology for decades, and people have told us we shouldn't do anything until China does.
Now China has done it and it's pretty much too late for Britain to take a lead on any of the relevant technology, because Britain let other countries get there first.
Just in the last year or two the opportunity to take a lead on small modular nuclear reactors has slipped through Britain's fingers. Unless Labour manage to dramatically turn this around, Britain will be paying other countries for the green energy technology they could have profited from.
So don't lecture me about green watermelons, thank you very much.
I thought the Greens opposed nuclear ?
Green party policy is anti-nuclear. Plenty of prominent Greens have been in favour. Some Greens have been equivocal, pointing out that nuclear is just too slow to build - something the small modular reactors might be better at.
I've heard Greens especially opposing the small modular reactors because it will be hard to stop them.
Imagine a small, safe, and cheap source of huge amounts of energy that could be run out of a production line, generating both clean power for the domestic market and £billions in exports. What a horrible problem to have, imagine how much economic growth could be driven by such technology.
And then you woke up.
And yet that is what Rolls Royce are working on right now.
The economic case for SMRs relies on them becoming mass production items. It's not ridiculous, but it's also not inevitable.
There’s also potentially a massive global market, and a massive first-mover advantage.
The Americans gave up after they could find a buyer, the British are still stalling - so that leaves, guess who, the Chinese, who already have pretty much a monopoly on solar and wind production.
There’s an opportunity for the UK to lead the world in something, and committing to buy a handful of them could prove to be one of the greatest investments the UK has made in decades. RR should offer the gov a stake in the project, if the order comes in for the first half a dozen.
And possibly the S Koreans, who are currently dominating the market for new conventional reactors. Which they build for about a quarter of the cost of ours, and more or less on time.
Meanwhile the Red Tory SKS Party says "The NHS is no longer a public service...it's an economic growth department"
You need to understand that dogma is at the root of breaking the NHS and Streeting not only knows this but is addressing it directly and for the NHS to have a future he needs to succeed
But also, it's why getting healthcare right matters.
We've got to the point where waiting lists are a meaningful drag on the economy, and some spending in the right places will pay back pretty quickly.
The evidence is that investment in healthcare has a very effective multiplier in terms of GDP growth, about 4x, not just in the UK either. Investment in Primary Care is higher still, perhaps as high as 14x.
Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
The conventional wisdom was that poor countries like China and India would have to produce absolutely loads of carbon before they could get rich and clean like us. This was essentially apocalyptic for the climate, and my lecturers were talking like Preppers - store baked beans and build houses on top of mountains.
That's happening to an extent as their population and economy explodes. However, they are doing significantly better than expected which is great source of happiness for everyone in the 20s and 30s. By the time Africa gets to this stage, solar will be so cheap they can transition to a developed economy with very little increase in emissions at all. Yaaas!
Well indeed, the solution to climate issues is science and technology, not cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Cutting consumption does absolutely nothing to improve the planet, as the rest of the planet intends to increase consumption not decrease it.
The way to solve climate problems is by ensuring we invest in clean consumption. Do so and you can have as much consumption as you like without hurting the planet (since anything times zero equals zero).
We can lead the way by investing in, developing and supporting clean technologies and the rest of the world will follow on that.
The madness of watermelon lunatics who pretend to be green but really just want to hurt people's consumption will do nothing for the environment.
Me and other Greens have been arguing for Britain to invest in new technology for decades, and people have told us we shouldn't do anything until China does.
Now China has done it and it's pretty much too late for Britain to take a lead on any of the relevant technology, because Britain let other countries get there first.
Just in the last year or two the opportunity to take a lead on small modular nuclear reactors has slipped through Britain's fingers. Unless Labour manage to dramatically turn this around, Britain will be paying other countries for the green energy technology they could have profited from.
So don't lecture me about green watermelons, thank you very much.
I thought the Greens opposed nuclear ?
Green party policy is anti-nuclear. Plenty of prominent Greens have been in favour. Some Greens have been equivocal, pointing out that nuclear is just too slow to build - something the small modular reactors might be better at.
I've heard Greens especially opposing the small modular reactors because it will be hard to stop them.
Hard to start them, more like. Despite all the hype, I've yet to see any economic or environmental benefits for SMRs or indeed any concrete proposals for their installation. As far as I can see, while they, like nuclear fusion, may become useful energy sources in the long-term future, in the meantime they are at best an irrelevance and, at worst, a distraction from the more urgent need to generate clean electricity.
The opposition to them is interesting - quite a bit of cross over with the permanent officials preventing tidal ponds. Big Nuclear really doesn't like them.
The advantages of the small reactors are
1) Type certification - once you have the design certified, no amusing decade long investigations of the individual designs. 2) Experience - we have companies making and installing small reactors now. Submarines. The SMRs are a slightly bigger and more powerful version of those. Basically the size of the reactors the Americans use in their aircraft carriers. Which are derived from their submarine reactors. And there is a lot of joint design work on US/UK reactors. 3) Installation/Scaling - instead of having decades of construction, the individual SMRs can be trucked to the site (probably old nuclear plant) and individually brought on line.
This doesn't sound at all convincing to me. They still need a cooling water supply and need to be linked up to generation facilities. They still need to be refuelled at some point. You still need to dispose of the waste. They still need security. Having, say, four SMRs on a site inside of a single traditional core just seems to me to make the whole thing more complex. I'm very sceptical about this.
The waste is the whole reactor. Probably go with lifetime cores - no refuelling. The actual radioactive bit is surprisingly small.
They will almost certainly be sited on old nuclear plant sites, many as replacements for the original reactors. So cooling water is available. And they can be guarded by Wayne Couzen's ex colleagues who are already there.
Many of the problems of nuclear are down to each reactor being a different design - production is how to refine a design to high availability and reliability. See the experience of the US Navy with their reactors.
Surely the solution to this is simply to come up with a standard design for a conventional reactor rather than trying to repurpose designs that have a completely different use case?
The benefit of the SMR is that you build them in a factory rather than building them on site. That knocks the price down by 50% before you even look at the benefits of a standard repeatable design...
That much makes sense, but how much of the cost of a nuclear power plant is the cost of building the core itself? I would imagine that that is relatively small compared to the cost of the infrastructure outside the core and the cost of operating the plant. And that is surely going to be greater if you have multiple small cores instead of one big one.
Don't get me wrong; I'd be pleased if we could quickly implement cheaper, safe nuclear power. I'm just very sceptical about the ability of SMRs to facilitate this.
@benhabib6 I have just been informed by Nigel Farage that Richard Tice is taking over as deputy leader of the party. Consequently I no longer hold that position.
I am considering my position more generally in light of this change.
I have long held concerns about the control of the party and the decision making processes.
I will reflect on all of this.
The key for me is that Reform UK stays true to the promises made to the British people. The movement we have created does not belong to us, it belongs to the people. We are obliged and indebted to the British people.
Rouen cathedral is on fire. The French seem to be having a lot of bad luck with that kind of thing.
Someone should paint it quick before it's too late.
Looks from the pictures like the main spire was under restoration, same fate as befell Notre Dame, but hopefully this one isn’t going to be quite so serious.
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Rouen cathedral is on fire. The French seem to be having a lot of bad luck with that kind of thing.
Someone should paint it quick before it's too late.
Looks from the pictures like the main spire was under restoration, same fate as befell Notre Dame, but hopefully this one isn’t going to be quite so serious.
I do have this terribly stereotypical vision of some old French craftsman working on these projects with a lit ciggie hanging out his mouth as he works on the restoration....then shock horror there is a fire.
@benhabib6 I have just been informed by Nigel Farage that Richard Tice is taking over as deputy leader of the party. Consequently I no longer hold that position.
I am considering my position more generally in light of this change.
I have long held concerns about the control of the party and the decision making processes.
I will reflect on all of this.
The key for me is that Reform UK stays true to the promises made to the British people. The movement we have created does not belong to us, it belongs to the people. We are obliged and indebted to the British people.
@benhabib6 I have just been informed by Nigel Farage that Richard Tice is taking over as deputy leader of the party. Consequently I no longer hold that position.
I am considering my position more generally in light of this change.
I have long held concerns about the control of the party and the decision making processes.
I will reflect on all of this.
The key for me is that Reform UK stays true to the promises made to the British people. The movement we have created does not belong to us, it belongs to the people. We are obliged and indebted to the British people.
The picture is a little unclear, another poll that had Jon Sopel very angry which had it at 60% viewership for reform. Something about right wing biased news shouldn't be allowed....he conveniently forgot to mention that Ch4 is equally skewed the other way.
For complicated reasons, I am working today from a hotel lobby in Manchester. A stunningly glamorous young woman has sat down opposite me. She is dressed in very little and with the appearance of very expensively. She has the look of someone who has spent hours on her appearance. I can smell her perfume from here. She is hastily chowing down a Spar chicken mayonnaise sandwich. Even the beautiful have to eat.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Why? UK North Sea oil production has an immaterial effect on global oil prices.
Unless you're suggesting we bring production into state ownership and/or develop massive state storage facilities to protect us from shocks from Russia, Saudi etc?
Meanwhile the Red Tory SKS Party says "The NHS is no longer a public service...it's an economic growth department"
You need to understand that dogma is at the root of breaking the NHS and Streeting not only knows this but is addressing it directly and for the NHS to have a future he needs to succeed
But also, it's why getting healthcare right matters.
We've got to the point where waiting lists are a meaningful drag on the economy, and some spending in the right places will pay back pretty quickly.
The evidence is that investment in healthcare has a very effective multiplier in terms of GDP growth, about 4x, not just in the UK either. Investment in Primary Care is higher still, perhaps as high as 14x.
I'm supposed to be going to Lords tomorrow. I'm still optimistic of getting SOME play. But it's looking increasingly dubious it will last until lunchtime on the third day. Could really do with some rain this afternoon.
The last thing the Tories need is Reform voters. Their views are extreme.
The ideal for the Conservatives is to get the votes of Reform backers without turning into Reform themselves. Partly because it would be bad government, but also because there are still more votes to lose on their left flank.
Unfortunately, that's not easy to do. The best way would have been to strangle them at birth, but it's about twenty years too later for that.
Do you mean by attempting to deceive them by putting a few right wing bones in the manifesto you have no intention of implementing (the norm)?
Which no longer works.
Or actually addressing the problem which means both building a lot more houses on nimby members prized view and stopping immigration to the extent that there is net migration to facilitate a house price collapase so that under 40s can get somewhere to live without paying an extortionate amount?
All of which is anathema to the wealthy vested interests controlling the party.
How stupid can you be, anyone facilitating a house price collapse would be out on their arses tout suite. Typical selfish arseholes wanting to bankrupt lots of people because they want everything for nothing. Get out and earn enough to buy a house you sad sick loser.
A house price collapse doesn't bankrupt anyone, it just makes costs more affordable. If you've been paying off your mortgage (or paid it off) you owe less or nothing on your home already, it's those who need to buy one we should be caring about not those who already have one.
Costs going up is a bad thing, costs going down is a good thing. Or do you want gas prices and other costs to only ever go up?
The only people who lose big time are.
Those that inherit. Investors/Landlords with multiple properties. The government if the owner goes into care as the self funded money runs out quicker.
Excess asset price inflation is just as corrosive to society as any other type of inflation. It is at the root of most of the ills that currently bedevill our society.
People who need to sell e.g. because they change jobs, also lose big time. At the start of the 90s there were lots of people who wanted to move but could not do so because the market was stagnant.
Which is utterly miniscule compared to the number of people who lose out by being priced out of the market altogether due to overvalued costs.
It can also be addressed (and has been by other countries) by transferable mortgages.
Even if you go into negative equity its only a paper problem unless it gets realised, ride it out and inflation will eventually mean you're out of it - or you continue to/finish paying off your mortgage so mathematically must come out of it eventually as you'll ultimately owe nothing.
Anyone paying interest-only on a mortgage, or remortgaging to realise paper gains only to end up with a paper loss deserves little sympathy for their foolishness.
People talk about negative equity as if its a problem for life.
In reality to be in negative equity you need to have:
1) Bought pretty much at the top of the market 2) Put down a very minimal deposit 3) Not reduced the outstanding mortgage amount by repayment
Negative equity results from a combination of greed, stupidity and bad luck.
Its also a very temporary problem.
Dipping into negative equity, so long as you continue to make your mortgage payments, will see you soon repay enough to get out of negative equity (unless you're on an interest-only mortgage, again greed/stupidity) or see regular inflation end up taking you back out of it again anyway.
Being priced out by ever escalating prices is not a temporary problem.
@benhabib6 I have just been informed by Nigel Farage that Richard Tice is taking over as deputy leader of the party. Consequently I no longer hold that position.
I am considering my position more generally in light of this change.
I have long held concerns about the control of the party and the decision making processes.
I will reflect on all of this.
The key for me is that Reform UK stays true to the promises made to the British people. The movement we have created does not belong to us, it belongs to the people. We are obliged and indebted to the British people.
@benhabib6 I have just been informed by Nigel Farage that Richard Tice is taking over as deputy leader of the party. Consequently I no longer hold that position.
I am considering my position more generally in light of this change.
I have long held concerns about the control of the party and the decision making processes.
I will reflect on all of this.
The key for me is that Reform UK stays true to the promises made to the British people. The movement we have created does not belong to us, it belongs to the people. We are obliged and indebted to the British people.
Meanwhile the Red Tory SKS Party says "The NHS is no longer a public service...it's an economic growth department"
You need to understand that dogma is at the root of breaking the NHS and Streeting not only knows this but is addressing it directly and for the NHS to have a future he needs to succeed
But also, it's why getting healthcare right matters.
We've got to the point where waiting lists are a meaningful drag on the economy, and some spending in the right places will pay back pretty quickly.
The evidence is that investment in healthcare has a very effective multiplier in terms of GDP growth, about 4x, not just in the UK either. Investment in Primary Care is higher still, perhaps as high as 14x.
The last thing the Tories need is Reform voters. Their views are extreme.
The ideal for the Conservatives is to get the votes of Reform backers without turning into Reform themselves. Partly because it would be bad government, but also because there are still more votes to lose on their left flank.
Unfortunately, that's not easy to do. The best way would have been to strangle them at birth, but it's about twenty years too later for that.
Do you mean by attempting to deceive them by putting a few right wing bones in the manifesto you have no intention of implementing (the norm)?
Which no longer works.
Or actually addressing the problem which means both building a lot more houses on nimby members prized view and stopping immigration to the extent that there is net migration to facilitate a house price collapase so that under 40s can get somewhere to live without paying an extortionate amount?
All of which is anathema to the wealthy vested interests controlling the party.
How stupid can you be, anyone facilitating a house price collapse would be out on their arses tout suite. Typical selfish arseholes wanting to bankrupt lots of people because they want everything for nothing. Get out and earn enough to buy a house you sad sick loser.
A house price collapse doesn't bankrupt anyone, it just makes costs more affordable. If you've been paying off your mortgage (or paid it off) you owe less or nothing on your home already, it's those who need to buy one we should be caring about not those who already have one.
Costs going up is a bad thing, costs going down is a good thing. Or do you want gas prices and other costs to only ever go up?
The only people who lose big time are.
Those that inherit. Investors/Landlords with multiple properties. The government if the owner goes into care as the self funded money runs out quicker.
Excess asset price inflation is just as corrosive to society as any other type of inflation. It is at the root of most of the ills that currently bedevill our society.
People who need to sell e.g. because they change jobs, also lose big time. At the start of the 90s there were lots of people who wanted to move but could not do so because the market was stagnant.
Which is utterly miniscule compared to the number of people who lose out by being priced out of the market altogether due to overvalued costs.
It can also be addressed (and has been by other countries) by transferable mortgages.
Even if you go into negative equity its only a paper problem unless it gets realised, ride it out and inflation will eventually mean you're out of it - or you continue to/finish paying off your mortgage so mathematically must come out of it eventually as you'll ultimately owe nothing.
Anyone paying interest-only on a mortgage, or remortgaging to realise paper gains only to end up with a paper loss deserves little sympathy for their foolishness.
People talk about negative equity as if its a problem for life.
In reality to be in negative equity you need to have:
1) Bought pretty much at the top of the market 2) Put down a very minimal deposit 3) Not reduced the outstanding mortgage amount by repayment
Negative equity results from a combination of greed, stupidity and bad luck.
Its also a very temporary problem.
Dipping into negative equity, so long as you continue to make your mortgage payments, will see you soon repay enough to get out of negative equity (unless you're on an interest-only mortgage, again greed/stupidity) or see regular inflation end up taking you back out of it again anyway.
Being priced out by ever escalating prices is not a temporary problem.
Meanwhile the Red Tory SKS Party says "The NHS is no longer a public service...it's an economic growth department"
You need to understand that dogma is at the root of breaking the NHS and Streeting not only knows this but is addressing it directly and for the NHS to have a future he needs to succeed
But also, it's why getting healthcare right matters.
We've got to the point where waiting lists are a meaningful drag on the economy, and some spending in the right places will pay back pretty quickly.
The evidence is that investment in healthcare has a very effective multiplier in terms of GDP growth, about 4x, not just in the UK either. Investment in Primary Care is higher still, perhaps as high as 14x.
Felons don't get to hold liquor licenses in New Jersey for their Golf Courses.
The New Jersey Office of the Attorney General has decided to not renew liquor licenses at two of former President Donald Trump’s golf courses in the state, after weeks of reviewing whether revoking the permits should be a consequence of Trump’s 34 felony convictions.
@benhabib6 I have just been informed by Nigel Farage that Richard Tice is taking over as deputy leader of the party. Consequently I no longer hold that position.
I am considering my position more generally in light of this change.
I have long held concerns about the control of the party and the decision making processes.
I will reflect on all of this.
The key for me is that Reform UK stays true to the promises made to the British people. The movement we have created does not belong to us, it belongs to the people. We are obliged and indebted to the British people.
Meanwhile the Red Tory SKS Party says "The NHS is no longer a public service...it's an economic growth department"
You need to understand that dogma is at the root of breaking the NHS and Streeting not only knows this but is addressing it directly and for the NHS to have a future he needs to succeed
But also, it's why getting healthcare right matters.
We've got to the point where waiting lists are a meaningful drag on the economy, and some spending in the right places will pay back pretty quickly.
The evidence is that investment in healthcare has a very effective multiplier in terms of GDP growth, about 4x, not just in the UK either. Investment in Primary Care is higher still, perhaps as high as 14x.
Felons don't get to hold liquor licenses in New Jersey for their Golf Courses.
The New Jersey Office of the Attorney General has decided to not renew liquor licenses at two of former President Donald Trump’s golf courses in the state, after weeks of reviewing whether revoking the permits should be a consequence of Trump’s 34 felony convictions.
Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
The conventional wisdom was that poor countries like China and India would have to produce absolutely loads of carbon before they could get rich and clean like us. This was essentially apocalyptic for the climate, and my lecturers were talking like Preppers - store baked beans and build houses on top of mountains.
That's happening to an extent as their population and economy explodes. However, they are doing significantly better than expected which is great source of happiness for everyone in the 20s and 30s. By the time Africa gets to this stage, solar will be so cheap they can transition to a developed economy with very little increase in emissions at all. Yaaas!
Well indeed, the solution to climate issues is science and technology, not cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Cutting consumption does absolutely nothing to improve the planet, as the rest of the planet intends to increase consumption not decrease it.
The way to solve climate problems is by ensuring we invest in clean consumption. Do so and you can have as much consumption as you like without hurting the planet (since anything times zero equals zero).
We can lead the way by investing in, developing and supporting clean technologies and the rest of the world will follow on that.
The madness of watermelon lunatics who pretend to be green but really just want to hurt people's consumption will do nothing for the environment.
Me and other Greens have been arguing for Britain to invest in new technology for decades, and people have told us we shouldn't do anything until China does.
Now China has done it and it's pretty much too late for Britain to take a lead on any of the relevant technology, because Britain let other countries get there first.
Just in the last year or two the opportunity to take a lead on small modular nuclear reactors has slipped through Britain's fingers. Unless Labour manage to dramatically turn this around, Britain will be paying other countries for the green energy technology they could have profited from.
So don't lecture me about green watermelons, thank you very much.
I thought the Greens opposed nuclear ?
Green party policy is anti-nuclear. Plenty of prominent Greens have been in favour. Some Greens have been equivocal, pointing out that nuclear is just too slow to build - something the small modular reactors might be better at.
I've heard Greens especially opposing the small modular reactors because it will be hard to stop them.
Hard to start them, more like. Despite all the hype, I've yet to see any economic or environmental benefits for SMRs or indeed any concrete proposals for their installation. As far as I can see, while they, like nuclear fusion, may become useful energy sources in the long-term future, in the meantime they are at best an irrelevance and, at worst, a distraction from the more urgent need to generate clean electricity.
The opposition to them is interesting - quite a bit of cross over with the permanent officials preventing tidal ponds. Big Nuclear really doesn't like them.
The advantages of the small reactors are
1) Type certification - once you have the design certified, no amusing decade long investigations of the individual designs. 2) Experience - we have companies making and installing small reactors now. Submarines. The SMRs are a slightly bigger and more powerful version of those. Basically the size of the reactors the Americans use in their aircraft carriers. Which are derived from their submarine reactors. And there is a lot of joint design work on US/UK reactors. 3) Installation/Scaling - instead of having decades of construction, the individual SMRs can be trucked to the site (probably old nuclear plant) and individually brought on line.
This doesn't sound at all convincing to me. They still need a cooling water supply and need to be linked up to generation facilities. They still need to be refuelled at some point. You still need to dispose of the waste. They still need security. Having, say, four SMRs on a site inside of a single traditional core just seems to me to make the whole thing more complex. I'm very sceptical about this.
The waste is the whole reactor. Probably go with lifetime cores - no refuelling. The actual radioactive bit is surprisingly small.
They will almost certainly be sited on old nuclear plant sites, many as replacements for the original reactors. So cooling water is available. And they can be guarded by Wayne Couzen's ex colleagues who are already there.
Many of the problems of nuclear are down to each reactor being a different design - production is how to refine a design to high availability and reliability. See the experience of the US Navy with their reactors.
Surely the solution to this is simply to come up with a standard design for a conventional reactor rather than trying to repurpose designs that have a completely different use case?
The benefit of the SMR is that you build them in a factory rather than building them on site. That knocks the price down by 50% before you even look at the benefits of a standard repeatable design...
That much makes sense, but how much of the cost of a nuclear power plant is the cost of building the core itself? I would imagine that that is relatively small compared to the cost of the infrastructure outside the core and the cost of operating the plant. And that is surely going to be greater if you have multiple small cores instead of one big one.
Don't get me wrong; I'd be pleased if we could quickly implement cheaper, safe nuclear power. I'm just very sceptical about the ability of SMRs to facilitate this.
I'm supposed to be going to Lords tomorrow. I'm still optimistic of getting SOME play. But it's looking increasingly dubious it will last until lunchtime on the third day. Could really do with some rain this afternoon.
The last two day test in the UK was also against the West Indies, IIRC. Many years ago. In the nineties.
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
We beat Germany in Euro 2020, albeit an average Germany team.
And, I'd classify Switzerland as a "good" side this time (I wouldn't say the same of the Netherlands).
But, unfortunately for Southgate, his legacy depends on one game. Win on Sunday, he is a great manager. Lose and he's a nearly manager and not much better than Robson, Venebles and Eriksson.
Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
I think it is more the case that they have increased power consumption so much that coal is maxed out and the only way to get the extra was solar
Meanwhile the Red Tory SKS Party says "The NHS is no longer a public service...it's an economic growth department"
You need to understand that dogma is at the root of breaking the NHS and Streeting not only knows this but is addressing it directly and for the NHS to have a future he needs to succeed
But also, it's why getting healthcare right matters.
We've got to the point where waiting lists are a meaningful drag on the economy, and some spending in the right places will pay back pretty quickly.
The evidence is that investment in healthcare has a very effective multiplier in terms of GDP growth, about 4x, not just in the UK either. Investment in Primary Care is higher still, perhaps as high as 14x.
A review of the NHS by your mate Alun Milburn is wrong with a capital W
In all my time on PB you won't find a positive word about Milburn from me. Alongside the Iraq war he is why I left the Labour Party 20 years ago.
What was it that Milburn did that was so bad?
To Quote from the 1997 Labour manifesto:
"In 1990 the Conservatives imposed on the NHS a complex internal market of hospitals competing to win contracts from health authorities and fundholding GPs. The result is an NHS strangled by costly red tape, with every individual transaction the subject of a separate invoice. After six years, bureaucracy swallows an extra £1.5 billion per year; there are 20,000 more managers and 50,000 fewer nurses on the wards; and more than one million people are on waiting lists. The government has consistently failed to meet even its own health targets.
There can be no return to top-down management, but Labour will end the Conservatives' internal market in healthcare. The planning and provision of care are necessary and distinct functions, and will remain so. But under the Tories, the administrative costs of purchasing care have undermined provision and the market system has distorted clinical priorities."
Meanwhile the Red Tory SKS Party says "The NHS is no longer a public service...it's an economic growth department"
You need to understand that dogma is at the root of breaking the NHS and Streeting not only knows this but is addressing it directly and for the NHS to have a future he needs to succeed
But also, it's why getting healthcare right matters.
We've got to the point where waiting lists are a meaningful drag on the economy, and some spending in the right places will pay back pretty quickly.
The evidence is that investment in healthcare has a very effective multiplier in terms of GDP growth, about 4x, not just in the UK either. Investment in Primary Care is higher still, perhaps as high as 14x.
Meanwhile the Red Tory SKS Party says "The NHS is no longer a public service...it's an economic growth department"
You need to understand that dogma is at the root of breaking the NHS and Streeting not only knows this but is addressing it directly and for the NHS to have a future he needs to succeed
But also, it's why getting healthcare right matters.
We've got to the point where waiting lists are a meaningful drag on the economy, and some spending in the right places will pay back pretty quickly.
The evidence is that investment in healthcare has a very effective multiplier in terms of GDP growth, about 4x, not just in the UK either. Investment in Primary Care is higher still, perhaps as high as 14x.
Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
I think it is more the case that they have increased power consumption so much that coal is maxed out and the only way to get the extra was solar
You would be completely wrong in thinking that.
The capacity utilisation figures for their existing coal (and gas) plants tell a different story. Power generated from both types of fossil fuel plants fell in absolute terms on the most recent set of figures - as overall power consumption grew.
Yesterday, @RonWyden and I announced that we have asked the Attorney General to designate a Special Counsel to look into the mess surrounding billionaire gifts to Justice Clarence Thomas for violations of law.
I'm supposed to be going to Lords tomorrow. I'm still optimistic of getting SOME play. But it's looking increasingly dubious it will last until lunchtime on the third day. Could really do with some rain this afternoon.
I'm going on Sunday but not optimistic the game will still be on.
The last thing the Tories need is Reform voters. Their views are extreme.
The ideal for the Conservatives is to get the votes of Reform backers without turning into Reform themselves. Partly because it would be bad government, but also because there are still more votes to lose on their left flank.
Unfortunately, that's not easy to do. The best way would have been to strangle them at birth, but it's about twenty years too later for that.
Do you mean by attempting to deceive them by putting a few right wing bones in the manifesto you have no intention of implementing (the norm)?
Which no longer works.
Or actually addressing the problem which means both building a lot more houses on nimby members prized view and stopping immigration to the extent that there is net migration to facilitate a house price collapase so that under 40s can get somewhere to live without paying an extortionate amount?
All of which is anathema to the wealthy vested interests controlling the party.
How stupid can you be, anyone facilitating a house price collapse would be out on their arses tout suite. Typical selfish arseholes wanting to bankrupt lots of people because they want everything for nothing. Get out and earn enough to buy a house you sad sick loser.
A house price collapse doesn't bankrupt anyone, it just makes costs more affordable. If you've been paying off your mortgage (or paid it off) you owe less or nothing on your home already, it's those who need to buy one we should be caring about not those who already have one.
Costs going up is a bad thing, costs going down is a good thing. Or do you want gas prices and other costs to only ever go up?
The only people who lose big time are.
Those that inherit. Investors/Landlords with multiple properties. The government if the owner goes into care as the self funded money runs out quicker.
Excess asset price inflation is just as corrosive to society as any other type of inflation. It is at the root of most of the ills that currently bedevill our society.
People who need to sell e.g. because they change jobs, also lose big time. At the start of the 90s there were lots of people who wanted to move but could not do so because the market was stagnant.
Which is utterly miniscule compared to the number of people who lose out by being priced out of the market altogether due to overvalued costs.
It can also be addressed (and has been by other countries) by transferable mortgages.
Even if you go into negative equity its only a paper problem unless it gets realised, ride it out and inflation will eventually mean you're out of it - or you continue to/finish paying off your mortgage so mathematically must come out of it eventually as you'll ultimately owe nothing.
Anyone paying interest-only on a mortgage, or remortgaging to realise paper gains only to end up with a paper loss deserves little sympathy for their foolishness.
People talk about negative equity as if its a problem for life.
In reality to be in negative equity you need to have:
1) Bought pretty much at the top of the market 2) Put down a very minimal deposit 3) Not reduced the outstanding mortgage amount by repayment
Negative equity results from a combination of greed, stupidity and bad luck.
Its also a very temporary problem.
Dipping into negative equity, so long as you continue to make your mortgage payments, will see you soon repay enough to get out of negative equity (unless you're on an interest-only mortgage, again greed/stupidity) or see regular inflation end up taking you back out of it again anyway.
Being priced out by ever escalating prices is not a temporary problem.
I'm supposed to be going to Lords tomorrow. I'm still optimistic of getting SOME play. But it's looking increasingly dubious it will last until lunchtime on the third day. Could really do with some rain this afternoon.
I'm going on Sunday but not optimistic the game will still be on.
A compulsory facial recognition database with ANPR cameras replaced with facial recognition cameras and a year inside for covering your face while driving would soon sort it.
Won't go down well in Guardian Towers though.
As ever, the question is what privacy we are willing to sacrifice for the greater good and will the other uses such a system might be put to by the government and its agencies be worse than allowing a small part of society to cause misery.to others.
Blair passed proceeds of crime legislation to allow the state to seize the receipts of drug dealing and terrorism. What we got was local councils bankrupting residents who pruned a protected tree without permission based on the imputed increased value of their house as a result of the tree no longer causing a light blocking nuisance.
Do you have a linky for that last claim?
Did @MrBedfordshire back this claim up, of someone pruning a TPO Tree being bankrupted after being pursued under Proceeds of Crime law?
I'd really like to see it, as I have never seen POCA used wrt TPO trees, and it is in my area of interest. Getting permission to prune is not difficult, and is free, and we treat damaging TPO trees as an attack on the system of maintaining the public environment, which is what it is.
The closest I am aware of was a millionaire scrote on Sandbanks who added £40k to the value of his property by destroying two TPO trees.
He got off lightly: all he got done for was £2700 fine, £15500 court costs, and the £40k profits he had made by illegally destroying the trees. That fine could have been £25k.
"Proceeds of Crime orders, such as the confiscation of property, are normally associated with seizing money from organised criminals. If a person is convicted from having profited from a crime, those funds can be confiscated by the court. However, these powers are increasingly being used by authorities in broader and ever more innovative ways. The result, in addition to relatively nominal fines, is that courts have begun imposing significant – and some would argue punitive – confiscation orders.
In this case the council appointed surveyors to determine the increase in the property’s value following the cutting down of the protected tree. In the opinion of the council’s experts, Wilson’s home increased in value by around £21,000."
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
A compulsory facial recognition database with ANPR cameras replaced with facial recognition cameras and a year inside for covering your face while driving would soon sort it.
Won't go down well in Guardian Towers though.
As ever, the question is what privacy we are willing to sacrifice for the greater good and will the other uses such a system might be put to by the government and its agencies be worse than allowing a small part of society to cause misery.to others.
Blair passed proceeds of crime legislation to allow the state to seize the receipts of drug dealing and terrorism. What we got was local councils bankrupting residents who pruned a protected tree without permission based on the imputed increased value of their house as a result of the tree no longer causing a light blocking nuisance.
Do you have a linky for that last claim?
Did @MrBedfordshire back this claim up, of someone pruning a TPO Tree being bankrupted after being pursued under Proceeds of Crime law?
I'd really like to see it, as I have never seen POCA used wrt TPO trees, and it is in my area of interest. Getting permission to prune is not difficult, and is free, and we treat damaging TPO trees as an attack on the system of maintaining the public environment, which is what it is.
The closest I am aware of was a millionaire scrote on Sandbanks who added £40k to the value of his property by destroying two TPO trees.
He got off lightly: all he got done for was £2700 fine, £15500 court costs, and the £40k profits he had made by illegally destroying the trees. That fine could have been £25k.
"Proceeds of Crime orders, such as the confiscation of property, are normally associated with seizing money from organised criminals. If a person is convicted from having profited from a crime, those funds can be confiscated by the court. However, these powers are increasingly being used by authorities in broader and ever more innovative ways. The result, in addition to relatively nominal fines, is that courts have begun imposing significant – and some would argue punitive – confiscation orders.
In this case the council appointed surveyors to determine the increase in the property’s value following the cutting down of the protected tree. In the opinion of the council’s experts, Wilson’s home increased in value by around £21,000."
So they’re using laws intended for drug dealers, terrorists, and people traffickers, to financially ruin someone who cuts down a protected tree on their own land?
Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
I think it is more the case that they have increased power consumption so much that coal is maxed out and the only way to get the extra was solar
In 2023 they were building 95% of the worlds new coal fired power stations. A major uptick. So they are still invested in coal for the time being.
Meanwhile the Red Tory SKS Party says "The NHS is no longer a public service...it's an economic growth department"
You need to understand that dogma is at the root of breaking the NHS and Streeting not only knows this but is addressing it directly and for the NHS to have a future he needs to succeed
But also, it's why getting healthcare right matters.
We've got to the point where waiting lists are a meaningful drag on the economy, and some spending in the right places will pay back pretty quickly.
The evidence is that investment in healthcare has a very effective multiplier in terms of GDP growth, about 4x, not just in the UK either. Investment in Primary Care is higher still, perhaps as high as 14x.
A review of the NHS by your mate Alun Milburn is wrong with a capital W
In all my time on PB you won't find a positive word about Milburn from me. Alongside the Iraq war he is why I left the Labour Party 20 years ago.
What was it that Milburn did that was so bad?
To Quote from the 1997 Labour manifesto:
"In 1990 the Conservatives imposed on the NHS a complex internal market of hospitals competing to win contracts from health authorities and fundholding GPs. The result is an NHS strangled by costly red tape, with every individual transaction the subject of a separate invoice. After six years, bureaucracy swallows an extra £1.5 billion per year; there are 20,000 more managers and 50,000 fewer nurses on the wards; and more than one million people are on waiting lists. The government has consistently failed to meet even its own health targets.
There can be no return to top-down management, but Labour will end the Conservatives' internal market in healthcare. The planning and provision of care are necessary and distinct functions, and will remain so. But under the Tories, the administrative costs of purchasing care have undermined provision and the market system has distorted clinical priorities."
One thing Streeting has done by bringing Milburn back is guaranteed himself a mahoosive income stream should he want it when he leaves parliament. It'll completely dwarf Milburn's outside earnings.
The impact of this is going depend on what software the US lets them have.
With the Block 15 Danish F-16s that went to Argentina, the Americans went all in an upgraded them to 'Tape 6.5' making them on a par with USAF Block-50s and the only fully capable F-16A/B HARM shooters.
If Ukraine got the sweetheart Argentina deal then it's a big step forward in capability. Once they have experienced crews, etc.
The last thing the Tories need is Reform voters. Their views are extreme.
I don't think Reform voters' views are necessarily 'extreme'. No doubt some are, but not all 4 million of them. If they have one major theme it's that they want much less immigration: I don't think this is extreme, nor confined to Reform voters. Similarly, although I would call the Green Party 'extremist', I don't think their voters are necessarily extreme - or at least, not most of them. I don't think their views are so easily characterised as Reform voters, but no doubt many of them simply think 'mm - the environment - that's an important issue. Perhaps the most important issue. So I'll vote Green.' I don't think that unreasonable either.
More in Common had some good polling before the election that did suggest that Reform voters were really quite "out there". Much more pro-Trump than everyone else, for example, with Tory voters much closer to Labour/Lib.
I'd be intrigued to see if that's the case for those who actually voted for them in the end.
Much more likely to be pro-Trump, certainly. But that probably goes from 1 in 100 among supporters of other parties to, what, 1 in 20 among supporters of Reform. I would guess. There were so many Reform voters that I'd be surprised if more than a small minority had *out there* views.
And in the interests of balance ditto the Green Party.
A compulsory facial recognition database with ANPR cameras replaced with facial recognition cameras and a year inside for covering your face while driving would soon sort it.
Won't go down well in Guardian Towers though.
As ever, the question is what privacy we are willing to sacrifice for the greater good and will the other uses such a system might be put to by the government and its agencies be worse than allowing a small part of society to cause misery.to others.
Blair passed proceeds of crime legislation to allow the state to seize the receipts of drug dealing and terrorism. What we got was local councils bankrupting residents who pruned a protected tree without permission based on the imputed increased value of their house as a result of the tree no longer causing a light blocking nuisance.
Do you have a linky for that last claim?
Did @MrBedfordshire back this claim up, of someone pruning a TPO Tree being bankrupted after being pursued under Proceeds of Crime law?
I'd really like to see it, as I have never seen POCA used wrt TPO trees, and it is in my area of interest. Getting permission to prune is not difficult, and is free, and we treat damaging TPO trees as an attack on the system of maintaining the public environment, which is what it is.
The closest I am aware of was a millionaire scrote on Sandbanks who added £40k to the value of his property by destroying two TPO trees.
He got off lightly: all he got done for was £2700 fine, £15500 court costs, and the £40k profits he had made by illegally destroying the trees. That fine could have been £25k.
The interesting point here is not the amount but the fact that, as @MrBedfordshire mentioned, the council used POCA in a separate court case after the criminal trial and fine to seize further monies. I would suggest it sets a very dangerous precedent, whatever you might think about the actual case. Using this logic almost anything might be considered as falling under the scope of POCA.
Edit - it also seems very dodgy to me that they waited until 3 years after the original trial before pursuing him under POCA.
I think that's appropriate, but probably inadequate.
This is a rich individual cynically breaking the law because he thinks he's too important to need to obey it. For me it's in the same category as a developer who burns down a listed building because he doesn't want it there in his way.
But I think it needs a heavier punishment than just depriving him of his illegal profits; that's not deterrent enough.
I think the guy should have had a prison sentence as well, pour encourager les autres and deterring anyone else from doing it.
The important point on POCA here is that it needs to be appropriately applied, which is a matter of checks and balances being correct.
Reflecting, I can think of a similar case reported in2023 where the landowner went to jail. There was a case near Leominster where a farmer destroyed 70 trees in an SSI and seriously damaged a long stretch of the River Legg.
He went to prison for 12 months, and was made to pay £1.2m. Repeat offender. At root he thinks it's HIS environment, when in reality it is OURS.
For these types of criminals, imo it's only jail that deters, because they think they are upstanding citizens.
"More than 12 months on, residents have now revealed how Mr Price is hailed by many as a local hero whose actions have been effective in safeguarding homes."
"Villagers say he has succeeded in preventing flooding where the authorities failed and believe he was unfairly mistreated."
"They said that by realigning the river, Mr Price has overcome much of the local flooding issues that have been damaging Kingsland for decades.
Simon Powney, a retained firefighter, said: 'It appears to have been an improvement.
'The river has settled down and looks back to normal.
'We're not getting the flooding problems there that we were. I've seen how it does flood there, but in the last lot of rain we didn't have any problems.
'If the work wasn't done, we would have had what happened last time with the water going into the houses by the bridge."...
Local resident Richard Collishaw added: 'There is a lot of difference down at the bottom of the river by the bridge.
'It looks very tidy now and I'm sure the trees are going to grow back.....
Even his local parish council came out in support in 2021, with Councillor Sebastian Bowen saying: 'The reality is it [the flooding] is much improved.
'People have been quite impressed with what has been done. People have stopped and said it was a good job.'
The Environment Agency previously said the damage was one of the worst cases of riverside destruction it had ever seen, which had a 'devastating' effect on wildlife.
But when asked recently whether Mr Price had alleviated flooding and what the long term impact to the river had been, they refused to address the question."
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
I think the biggest achievement is that this England team is clearly not fussed about extra time and penalties. The late substitutions and lack of aimless crossing/long balls from 75 minutes onward means they are fresh and composed for the full 90/120. Compare with Scotland; we completely lost our heads to occasion even after an impressive qualifying campaign.
You didn't sense any panic in any of these very close games, nor during the penalties. Bodes well for the final.
- It is well known that MP is not a job for life, and recent years have shown even safe seats can't be relied on - MP's pay lags significantly behind private sector pay for equivalent levels of qualification - It's becoming increasingly difficult for MPs to have other paid work while sitting in parliament - The non-political private sector world is itself becoming more politically sensitive - Therefore the post-political career is ever more important to MPs when considering their ideological and policy positions - This is particularly the case for Tory MPs as explained below
Therefore:
There are broadly 3 positions it makes sense to adopt if you are a Conservative front-line politician, each of which provides for a well paid post-MP career:
1. "Moderate" coded, with remainer vibes. This opens up potentially reasonably lucrative careers in the large corporate world, as a non-exec or adviser, or in a law firm as a public policy expert. There is a parallel path into the world of podcasts and journalism which can be combined with the corporate roles. Nobody going this route is going to become a billionaire but it's a solid career.
2. Free market fundamentalist and Singapore on Thames Brexiteer. There is a world of well paid employment out there in the funds industry and think tanks, as well as the US speaker circuit, if you are convincingly IEA in outlook. There is also the prospect of newspaper columns if you write well.
3. Angry culture warrior. Angry people on both left and right used to struggle to hold down employment after politics, so absorbed were they in their ideology. However with the advent of social media and the factionalisation and spread of US cultural politics there is an extremely lucrative path to be trodden if you can establish yourself as the sort of ideologue who will be welcomed on to the stage of American conservative and MAGA conferences. Probably the most money of all to be earned here
So these are the strange attractors that force Tory politicians to flip towards one or other semi-stable equilibrium. There is some crossover between 2 and 3, but opting for 3 pretty much rules you out of 1, and going down the moderate coded route makes success among the freemarketers challenging.
This is why we don't see many politicians managing to unite the factions in their party. Those who don't neatly fit into one or other category may struggle for post-MP employment. The only hope for many of the one-term red wallers is probably 3. The only get-out is having been a cabinet minister with an important portfolio.
- It is well known that MP is not a job for life, and recent years have shown even safe seats can't be relied on - MP's pay lags significantly behind private sector pay for equivalent levels of qualification - It's becoming increasingly difficult for MPs to have other paid work while sitting in parliament - The non-political private sector world is itself becoming more politically sensitive - Therefore the post-political career is ever more important to MPs when considering their ideological and policy positions - This is particularly the case for Tory MPs as explained below
Therefore:
There are broadly 3 positions it makes sense to adopt if you are a Conservative front-line politician, each of which provides for a well paid post-MP career:
1. "Moderate" coded, with remainer vibes. This opens up potentially reasonably lucrative careers in the large corporate world, as a non-exec or adviser, or in a law firm as a public policy expert. There is a parallel path into the world of podcasts and journalism which can be combined with the corporate roles. Nobody going this route is going to become a billionaire but it's a solid career.
2. Free market fundamentalist and Singapore on Thames Brexiteer. There is a world of well paid employment out there in the funds industry and think tanks, as well as the US speaker circuit, if you are convincingly IEA in outlook. There is also the prospect of newspaper columns if you write well.
3. Angry culture warrior. Angry people on both left and right used to struggle to hold down employment after politics, so absorbed were they in their ideology. However with the advent of social media and the factionalisation and spread of US cultural politics there is an extremely lucrative path to be trodden if you can establish yourself as the sort of ideologue who will be welcomed on to the stage of American conservative and MAGA conferences. Probably the most money of all to be earned here
So these are the strange attractors that force Tory politicians to flip towards one or other semi-stable equilibrium. There is some crossover between 2 and 3, but opting for 3 pretty much rules you out of 1, and going down the moderate coded route makes success among the freemarketers challenging.
This is why we don't see many politicians managing to unite the factions in their party. Those who don't neatly fit into one or other category may struggle for post-MP employment. The only hope for many of the one-term red wallers is probably 3. The only get-out is having been a cabinet minister with an important portfolio.
Other parties:
It's a different landscape for the other large GB-wide parties.
For Labour, there is limited scope for social media grift on the far left. There are only so many Owen Joneses out there and little or no demand from across the Atlantic. The left of centre thinktanks are always there but are not the entry point to lucrative roles in the funds industry like those on Tufton St. So the path of least resistance is to be as presentable, corporate and suitable for those chairmanship or consultancy roles as possible.
The charity sector is, by contrast, a much more viable option than for Tory ex-politicians.
For Lib Dems there is really only one lucrative route and that is the equivalent of route 1, but is only feasible if - like Nick Clegg or Vince Cable - you have ascended right to the top of the ranks within the party and ideally held a ministerial post in coalition. Otherwise in most cases your earning power when you leave parliament is going to be very much like what you brought with you before politics.
For Reform MPs, a new and still limited breed, surely route 3 is the be all and end all.
I'm supposed to be going to Lords tomorrow. I'm still optimistic of getting SOME play. But it's looking increasingly dubious it will last until lunchtime on the third day. Could really do with some rain this afternoon.
I'm going on Sunday but not optimistic the game will still be on.
I would start making other arrangements.
I need the Windies to bat for 2 days. One wonders when the last time they did that was. Probably around 1984.
Prediction, imho while the Tory party view the audience of GB News as their key demographic to win over then they will not form a government.
And if they allow Farage to take over all the GB news demographic they may not even remain main opposition
I know I've made this point before - but Reform didn't grow because the Tories were drifting centre-wards. It grew because it wasn't doing normal centre-right things competently enough.
Five environmental activists are facing long sentences after they were found guilty of conspiring to block traffic on the M25, after a trial in which the defendants were arrested various times for defying the court.
At times, the two-and-a-half-week trial descended into chaos, with defendants arrested for contempt and dragged by police and custody officers into the dock and down to the cells when they refused to leave the witness box or spoke out of turn, claiming they were not being given the opportunity to present their full case.
On the second day of defence evidence, 11 people were arrested for alleged contempt after they protested outside Southwark crown court with signs saying: “Jurors have the right to hear the whole truth.” Protesters nevertheless returned day after day, until on the final day more than 80 sat outside the court with placards.
I'm supposed to be going to Lords tomorrow. I'm still optimistic of getting SOME play. But it's looking increasingly dubious it will last until lunchtime on the third day. Could really do with some rain this afternoon.
I'm going on Sunday but not optimistic the game will still be on.
I would start making other arrangements.
I need the Windies to bat for 2 days. One wonders when the last time they did that was. Probably around 1984.
Perhaps when Lara and Chanderpaul were opening in the mid ‘90s?
I'm supposed to be going to Lords tomorrow. I'm still optimistic of getting SOME play. But it's looking increasingly dubious it will last until lunchtime on the third day. Could really do with some rain this afternoon.
I'm going on Sunday but not optimistic the game will still be on.
I would start making other arrangements.
I need the Windies to bat for 2 days. One wonders when the last time they did that was. Probably around 1984.
I am not sure any international team these days can bat for 2 days.
A compulsory facial recognition database with ANPR cameras replaced with facial recognition cameras and a year inside for covering your face while driving would soon sort it.
Won't go down well in Guardian Towers though.
As ever, the question is what privacy we are willing to sacrifice for the greater good and will the other uses such a system might be put to by the government and its agencies be worse than allowing a small part of society to cause misery.to others.
Blair passed proceeds of crime legislation to allow the state to seize the receipts of drug dealing and terrorism. What we got was local councils bankrupting residents who pruned a protected tree without permission based on the imputed increased value of their house as a result of the tree no longer causing a light blocking nuisance.
Do you have a linky for that last claim?
Did @MrBedfordshire back this claim up, of someone pruning a TPO Tree being bankrupted after being pursued under Proceeds of Crime law?
I'd really like to see it, as I have never seen POCA used wrt TPO trees, and it is in my area of interest. Getting permission to prune is not difficult, and is free, and we treat damaging TPO trees as an attack on the system of maintaining the public environment, which is what it is.
The closest I am aware of was a millionaire scrote on Sandbanks who added £40k to the value of his property by destroying two TPO trees.
He got off lightly: all he got done for was £2700 fine, £15500 court costs, and the £40k profits he had made by illegally destroying the trees. That fine could have been £25k.
"Proceeds of Crime orders, such as the confiscation of property, are normally associated with seizing money from organised criminals. If a person is convicted from having profited from a crime, those funds can be confiscated by the court. However, these powers are increasingly being used by authorities in broader and ever more innovative ways. The result, in addition to relatively nominal fines, is that courts have begun imposing significant – and some would argue punitive – confiscation orders.
In this case the council appointed surveyors to determine the increase in the property’s value following the cutting down of the protected tree. In the opinion of the council’s experts, Wilson’s home increased in value by around £21,000."
So they’re using laws intended for drug dealers, terrorists, and people traffickers, to financially ruin someone who cuts down a protected tree on their own land?
He didn't even cut them down, just gave them a significant pruning. They will grow back.
These sorts of powers allow jumped up power crazed ideologically rugid c**ts in councils to lord it over residents like Norman Barons and hold them in just as much contempt.
Comments
It's not ridiculous, but it's also not inevitable.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/01/29/the-intermarium/
The Americans gave up after they could find a buyer, the British are still stalling - so that leaves, guess who, the Chinese, who already have pretty much a monopoly on solar and wind production.
There’s an opportunity for the UK to lead the world in something, and committing to buy a handful of them could prove to be one of the greatest investments the UK has made in decades. RR should offer the gov a stake in the project, if the order comes in for the first half a dozen.
You could easily get a situation where two identical crimes, one of which was done to generate increased value and one of which was simply because someone objected to having their light blocked with no fiancial gain, were punished to a completely different extent - one paying tens of thousands of pounds through POCA and one paying only the basic few hundred or thousand in the original criminal fine.
As an aside I found the arguments in favour of the man who destroyed the riverbanks particularly pernicious.
Both people are being treated equally in both circumstances, there is a punishment and there is a restitution to ensure they do not profit from the crime.
No.
A gentle reminder that it's the GOP that recently held up US military aid to Ukraine for nearly six months.
It's entirely appropriate to criticise Biden for being overcautious, and a less than fully committed response to the Russian invasion. But not at all so from the POV of the US Republican Party.
They're still getting most of their energy from coal. We are getting the overwhelming majority of our energy from zero-carbon sources already.
However we should continue to ignore those who oppose development of clean technologies as we have done for years, whether they be watermelon greens or pro-Putin fossils.
Tough for those who are already born, but leads to less child poverty in the future.
I suspect coal will disappear fairly quickly as more and more solar gets installed.
The broad policy of sitting back and minimally arming Ukraine was set by Biden, not the Republicans.
Its not them overtaking us.
I welcome them catching up with us on this. Its a good thing.
The argument for SMRs is that it's possible to build production lines for a standard product, which once certified can be repeated at much lower cost. It's not an obviously absurd argument.
And to assure that because the votes went from the Tories to Reform shows they are right-wingers is not correct. They are floaters or disaffected. By the same logic you are then assuming all those that voted Labour are socialist, but clearly lots used to vote Tory so that is not true. Equally when the LDs poll high it is daft to assume they are all Liberals. They aren't. They are people lending their vote.
Imagine if we could do to the price of electricity, what SpaceX has done to the price of rocket launches.
Droning on about the 33.7% Lab vote or the Blue Tories plans to hand chunks of the NHS to their private health donors is here to stay if you dont like it
Swivel
It took the Labour party to create the NHS in defiance of Tory wishes, it just takes Wes and the Labour Party to destroy it with their new Tory supporters like you and Sunil cheering on.
Opposed by Trump and his wing of the GOP.
You're a Putinist shill if you want Trump's policy for Ukraine.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant
On budget, and would have been on time were it not for a pandemic getting in the way.
https://www.nhsconfed.org/publications/analysis-influence-nhs-spending-economic-growth
Streeting is not wrong on this.
Surely the sensible thing to do was let that process run its course and then say we won't be doing anymore.
Don't get me wrong; I'd be pleased if we could quickly implement cheaper, safe nuclear power. I'm just very sceptical about the ability of SMRs to facilitate this.
@benhabib6
I have just been informed by Nigel Farage that Richard Tice is taking over as deputy leader of the party. Consequently I no longer hold that position.
I am considering my position more generally in light of this change.
I have long held concerns about the control of the party and the decision making processes.
I will reflect on all of this.
The key for me is that Reform UK stays true to the promises made to the British people. The movement we have created does not belong to us, it belongs to the people. We are obliged and indebted to the British people.
https://x.com/benhabib6/status/1811347815332733337
Welding
Temporary electrics
Blunt power tool starting a smoldering fire deep in a piece of wood
An old, old story
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
(If you have multiple MPs, obviously the leader and deputy should come from the ranks of the elected. But yes. Popcorn.)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/25/labour-more-popular-than-tories-with-gb-news-viewers/
Also the large donors need to get something for their generosity. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
(Checks Enid Blyton bibliography)
We're going to have "The Adventurous Four" not "The Famous Five".
There is also "The Three Sailors", so we are covered.
When it gets down to Nigel and Lee, we have "Noddy and Big Ears".
She is hastily chowing down a Spar chicken mayonnaise sandwich. Even the beautiful have to eat.
Unless you're suggesting we bring production into state ownership and/or develop massive state storage facilities to protect us from shocks from Russia, Saudi etc?
I am on a fixed I/O mortgage at 1.49%
Instead of making repayments I am lending it to the government for 4.25% tax free and have roughly matched the maturity to my mortgage fix.
That’s not stupid. And nor is it unnecessary risky.
Not sure who is the dog, or who is the girl identifying as a boy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ2oXzrnti4
Those who've literally done interest only and put off repayments until the never never have only themselves to blame.
Felons don't get to hold liquor licenses in New Jersey for their Golf Courses.
The New Jersey Office of the Attorney General has decided to not renew liquor licenses at two of former President Donald Trump’s golf courses in the state, after weeks of reviewing whether revoking the permits should be a consequence of Trump’s 34 felony convictions.
New Jersey law says that no one who has been “convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude,” should possess a liquor license, and the AG’s Division of Alcohol Beverage Control determined that Trump directly financially benefits from the permits, according to a statement from the office.
https://www.inquirer.com/politics/new-jersey/trump-golf-course-liquor-license-renewal-20240701.html
https://gda.rolls-royce-smr.com/documents
And, I'd classify Switzerland as a "good" side this time (I wouldn't say the same of the Netherlands).
But, unfortunately for Southgate, his legacy depends on one game. Win on Sunday, he is a great manager. Lose and he's a nearly manager and not much better than Robson, Venebles and Eriksson.
"In 1990 the Conservatives imposed on the NHS a complex internal market of hospitals competing to win contracts from health authorities and fundholding GPs. The result is an NHS strangled by costly red tape, with every individual transaction the subject of a separate invoice. After six years, bureaucracy swallows an extra £1.5 billion per year; there are 20,000 more managers and 50,000 fewer nurses on the wards; and more than one million people are on waiting lists. The government has consistently failed to meet even its own health targets.
There can be no return to top-down management, but Labour will end the Conservatives' internal market in healthcare. The planning and provision of care are necessary and distinct functions, and will remain so. But under the Tories, the administrative costs of purchasing care have undermined provision and the market system has distorted clinical priorities."
How long you got
The capacity utilisation figures for their existing coal (and gas) plants tell a different story. Power generated from both types of fossil fuel plants fell in absolute terms on the most recent set of figures - as overall power consumption grew.
Yesterday, @RonWyden and I announced that we have asked the Attorney General to designate a Special Counsel to look into the mess surrounding billionaire gifts to Justice Clarence Thomas for violations of law.
Why did we do this? ...
https://x.com/SenWhitehouse/status/1811066841621471573
"Proceeds of Crime orders, such as the confiscation of property, are normally associated with seizing money from organised criminals. If a person is convicted from having profited from a crime, those funds can be confiscated by the court. However, these powers are increasingly being used by authorities in broader and ever more innovative ways. The result, in addition to relatively nominal fines, is that courts have begun imposing significant – and some would argue punitive – confiscation orders.
In this case the council appointed surveyors to determine the increase in the property’s value following the cutting down of the protected tree. In the opinion of the council’s experts, Wilson’s home increased in value by around £21,000."
https://www.timms-law.com/commercial-and-property-homeowner-fined-for-cutting-back-tree/
Honestly, I'm sick and tired of Labour doing what they'd said they'd do in the manifesto which they won a huge majority with. How dare they.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
With the Block 15 Danish F-16s that went to Argentina, the Americans went all in an upgraded them to 'Tape 6.5' making them on a par with USAF Block-50s and the only fully capable F-16A/B HARM shooters.
If Ukraine got the sweetheart Argentina deal then it's a big step forward in capability. Once they have experienced crews, etc.
@OwenJones84
·
2h
Keir Starmer rightly denounces the killing of Ukrainian children by the Russian army as "the most depraved of actions."
He has said no such thing about Israel's mass slaughter of Palestinian children.
There's a word for this double standard. It is "racism".
"More than 12 months on, residents have now revealed how Mr Price is hailed by many as a local hero whose actions have been effective in safeguarding homes."
"Villagers say he has succeeded in preventing flooding where the authorities failed and believe he was unfairly mistreated."
"They said that by realigning the river, Mr Price has overcome much of the local flooding issues that have been damaging Kingsland for decades.
Simon Powney, a retained firefighter, said: 'It appears to have been an improvement.
'The river has settled down and looks back to normal.
'We're not getting the flooding problems there that we were. I've seen how it does flood there, but in the last lot of rain we didn't have any problems.
'If the work wasn't done, we would have had what happened last time with the water going into the houses by the bridge."...
Local resident Richard Collishaw added: 'There is a lot of difference down at the bottom of the river by the bridge.
'It looks very tidy now and I'm sure the trees are going to grow back.....
Even his local parish council came out in support in 2021, with Councillor Sebastian Bowen saying: 'The reality is it [the flooding] is much improved.
'People have been quite impressed with what has been done. People have stopped and said it was a good job.'
The Environment Agency previously said the damage was one of the worst cases of riverside destruction it had ever seen, which had a 'devastating' effect on wildlife.
But when asked recently whether Mr Price had alleviated flooding and what the long term impact to the river had been, they refused to address the question."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13521789/farmer-jailed-local-hero-villagers-actions-flooding-prevented.html
You didn't sense any panic in any of these very close games, nor during the penalties. Bodes well for the final.
THE CAREER PLANNING THEORY OF TORY FACTIONS
Context:
- It is well known that MP is not a job for life, and recent years have shown even safe seats can't be relied on
- MP's pay lags significantly behind private sector pay for equivalent levels of qualification
- It's becoming increasingly difficult for MPs to have other paid work while sitting in parliament
- The non-political private sector world is itself becoming more politically sensitive
- Therefore the post-political career is ever more important to MPs when considering their ideological and policy positions
- This is particularly the case for Tory MPs as explained below
Therefore:
There are broadly 3 positions it makes sense to adopt if you are a Conservative front-line politician, each of which provides for a well paid post-MP career:
1. "Moderate" coded, with remainer vibes. This opens up potentially reasonably lucrative careers in the large corporate world, as a non-exec or adviser, or in a law firm as a public policy expert. There is a parallel path into the world of podcasts and journalism which can be combined with the corporate roles. Nobody going this route is going to become a billionaire but it's a solid career.
2. Free market fundamentalist and Singapore on Thames Brexiteer. There is a world of well paid employment out there in the funds industry and think tanks, as well as the US speaker circuit, if you are convincingly IEA in outlook. There is also the prospect of newspaper columns if you write well.
3. Angry culture warrior. Angry people on both left and right used to struggle to hold down employment after politics, so absorbed were they in their ideology. However with the advent of social media and the factionalisation and spread of US cultural politics there is an extremely lucrative path to be trodden if you can establish yourself as the sort of ideologue who will be welcomed on to the stage of American conservative and MAGA conferences. Probably the most money of all to be earned here
So these are the strange attractors that force Tory politicians to flip towards one or other semi-stable equilibrium. There is some crossover between 2 and 3, but opting for 3 pretty much rules you out of 1, and going down the moderate coded route makes success among the freemarketers challenging.
This is why we don't see many politicians managing to unite the factions in their party. Those who don't neatly fit into one or other category may struggle for post-MP employment. The only hope for many of the one-term red wallers is probably 3. The only get-out is having been a cabinet minister with an important portfolio.
It's a different landscape for the other large GB-wide parties.
For Labour, there is limited scope for social media grift on the far left. There are only so many Owen Joneses out there and little or no demand from across the Atlantic. The left of centre thinktanks are always there but are not the entry point to lucrative roles in the funds industry like those on Tufton St. So the path of least resistance is to be as presentable, corporate and suitable for those chairmanship or consultancy roles as possible.
The charity sector is, by contrast, a much more viable option than for Tory ex-politicians.
For Lib Dems there is really only one lucrative route and that is the equivalent of route 1, but is only feasible if - like Nick Clegg or Vince Cable - you have ascended right to the top of the ranks within the party and ideally held a ministerial post in coalition. Otherwise in most cases your earning power when you leave parliament is going to be very much like what you brought with you before politics.
For Reform MPs, a new and still limited breed, surely route 3 is the be all and end all.
Five environmental activists are facing long sentences after they were found guilty of conspiring to block traffic on the M25, after a trial in which the defendants were arrested various times for defying the court.
At times, the two-and-a-half-week trial descended into chaos, with defendants arrested for contempt and dragged by police and custody officers into the dock and down to the cells when they refused to leave the witness box or spoke out of turn, claiming they were not being given the opportunity to present their full case.
On the second day of defence evidence, 11 people were arrested for alleged contempt after they protested outside Southwark crown court with signs saying: “Jurors have the right to hear the whole truth.” Protesters nevertheless returned day after day, until on the final day more than 80 sat outside the court with placards.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/11/just-stop-oil-activists-found-guilty-of-conspiring-to-block-m25-traffic
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
These sorts of powers allow jumped up power crazed ideologically rugid c**ts in councils to lord it over residents like Norman Barons and hold them in just as much contempt.