Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The power of imagery. – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,158
edited August 4 in General
imageThe power of imagery. – politicalbetting.com

The Trump campaign has a great deal of thanks to give to Evan Vucci. For it is he that has taken what will be the defining photo of the 2024 US election.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,228
    A friend of mine, not a Trumpite, said to me yesterday

    "My God, that photo, made me want to vote for him"

    Given that he lives in Truro, Cornwall this should not unduly influence the US elex - he hasn't got a vote; but I thought it was an interesting reaction. And it supports your thesis
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,960

    Lots of people do think both pictures were staged.

    I have a photo of the actual assassination. Robert Peston has confirmed the provenance of the photograph.

    Prof Peston seems to have managed to restrain himself from tw@ttering about the Trump assassination entirely.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,362
    FPT
    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,874
    Maybe. Though Trump surviving an assassination attempt from a 20 year old incel who was so bad a shot he failed to make his high school rifle team with just a bloodied ear is not quite the same as the many US soldiers who were killed by the ruthless Japanese military before the flag raising on Iwo Jima
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,015

    Well, that really takes the biscuit today!

    TSE quotes Robert Peston as a reliable source.

    And Leon has an odd friend in Cornwall!

    To what is this site coming?

    TSE is known for his sense of humour.

    Actually, given the number of photographers at the event, the ability of current digital cameras to take 15 shots per second, and the fact the the backdrop for the stage was staged with lots of US flags in it, it would have been surprising had no one come up with such a compelling image.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,504

    Lots of people do think both pictures were staged.

    I have a photo of the actual assassination attemptt. Robert Peston has confirmed the provenance of the photograph.


    In a way the Iwo Jima flag raising was staged. A smaller flag had been raised on the same spot several hours earlier just after the peak was captured. There is a picture of this.

    The famous image was taken later that afternoon. It was not staged specifically for the photograph as some claimed (there is film of it that proves this) but neither was it the original flag raising in the immediate aftermath of combat.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,157
    HYUFD said:

    Maybe. Though Trump surviving an assassination attempt from a 20 year old incel who was so bad a shot he failed to make his high school rifle team with just a bloodied ear is not quite the same as the many US soldiers who were killed by the ruthless Japanese military before the flag raising on Iwo Jima

    Correct - For the avoidance of doubt re the header, I'm certainly not claiming that !
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,392
    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,228
    HYUFD said:

    Maybe. Though Trump surviving an assassination attempt from a 20 year old incel who was so bad a shot he failed to make his high school rifle team with just a bloodied ear is not quite the same as the many US soldiers who were killed by the ruthless Japanese military before the flag raising on Iwo Jima

    Slightly missing the point there, @HYUFD

    ON topic, what surprises me is how willing liberal media are to use this image. The NYT has it plastered everywhere, page 1. 2, 3 and on. Endless

    They must know it is very powerful and already iconic and is great for Trump. Nonetheless they use it constantly, so that suggests it is SUCH a good photo the political disbenefits are outweighed by its catnip quality for readers
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,103
    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Current market cap seems to be under £15m - unless I missed something.

    Forgemasters' solution - like the Tories :wink: .
  • Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Maybe. Though Trump surviving an assassination attempt from a 20 year old incel who was so bad a shot he failed to make his high school rifle team with just a bloodied ear is not quite the same as the many US soldiers who were killed by the ruthless Japanese military before the flag raising on Iwo Jima

    Slightly missing the point there, @HYUFD

    ON topic, what surprises me is how willing liberal media are to use this image. The NYT has it plastered everywhere, page 1. 2, 3 and on. Endless

    They must know it is very powerful and already iconic and is great for Trump. Nonetheless they use it constantly, so that suggests it is SUCH a good photo the political disbenefits are outweighed by its catnip quality for readers
    There comes a point where paying the bills matters.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,362

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,207
    HYUFD said:

    Maybe. Though Trump surviving an assassination attempt from a 20 year old incel who was so bad a shot he failed to make his high school rifle team with just a bloodied ear is not quite the same as the many US soldiers who were killed by the ruthless Japanese military before the flag raising on Iwo Jima

    That might be true rationally, but this process isn't entirely rational. It's also about the feels, and the tendency of man to hear what he wants to hear (and disregard the rest).

    After all, the rational response to the weekend's events is to say, very loudly, "too many people have too many guns in America, and it isn't making the country safer". And I don't hear anyone who wants to be elected saying that.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    Lots of people do think both pictures were staged.

    I have a photo of the actual assassination attemptt. Robert Peston has confirmed the provenance of the photograph.


    Should Trump award himself a Purple Heart for his bravery?

    No one can even hint at the absurd notion that Trump dodged the draft with a spurious justification. Anyway, everyone knows heel spurs are a debilitating condition.

    He's proved he's a big boy now!
  • Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 689
    Tidal power - works on 4 generating cycles a day - on incoming and outgoing tide twice a day. You only need an offset in tides between two locations of 3-4 hours to balance power generation. Cardiff and Colwyn Bay have been proposed for this reason.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,015

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Put in into administration first.
    Whatever government decides, paying the owners a large dividend is going to make funding any solution more difficult, not easier.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,707
    Penddu2 said:

    Tidal power - works on 4 generating cycles a day - on incoming and outgoing tide twice a day. You only need an offset in tides between two locations of 3-4 hours to balance power generation. Cardiff and Colwyn Bay have been proposed for this reason.

    It was mentioned in the Labour manifesto, but not prominently. Pity MarqueeMark isn't here no to proselytise

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,015
    Penddu2 said:

    Tidal power - works on 4 generating cycles a day - on incoming and outgoing tide twice a day. You only need an offset in tides between two locations of 3-4 hours to balance power generation. Cardiff and Colwyn Bay have been proposed for this reason.

    And power generation could also be smoothed by grid scale batteries.
    What's the timescale for building those two if they were to be given the go ahead this year ?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,392
    eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
    Ive seen 200-250k bandied about from various putlets. Here's a quote from a fact checker.
    94k jobs in Scotland 220k in UK. Most jobs are in the supply chain rather than direct.

    https://fullfact.org/economy/sunak-scotland-oil-jobs/
  • MisterBedfordshireMisterBedfordshire Posts: 2,252
    edited July 15
    geoffw said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Tidal power - works on 4 generating cycles a day - on incoming and outgoing tide twice a day. You only need an offset in tides between two locations of 3-4 hours to balance power generation. Cardiff and Colwyn Bay have been proposed for this reason.

    It was mentioned in the Labour manifesto, but not prominently. Pity MarqueeMark isn't here no to proselytise

    Swansea bay could have been up and running by now.

    Yes it was very expensive but most of that was the civil engineering works which would have lasted a century or more (far more if maintained well).

    That is the sort of thing Labour will have to overcome - and fast - if they are going to suceed with actions their good intentions with words.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,228

    Lots of people do think both pictures were staged.

    I have a photo of the actual assassination attemptt. Robert Peston has confirmed the provenance of the photograph.


    Should Trump award himself a Purple Heart for his bravery?

    No one can even hint at the absurd notion that Trump dodged the draft with a spurious justification. Anyway, everyone knows heel spurs are a debilitating condition.

    He's proved he's a big boy now!
    It was Biden who boasted he was going to do a "big boy press conference". Literally. Peak Cringe

    "Having senior WH staff repeatedly use the phrase “big boy press conference” on purpose, again and again can only be sabotage from within designed to purposely make Biden look terrible.

    Who wrote that line?"

    https://x.com/brucefenton/status/1811474347447521708
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,876
    edited July 15
    I cannot see it moving the dial an inch. It could give Trump the opportunity to do something meaningful while he has the spotlight on him but in an of itself not at all.

    It tells neither supporters nor opponents anything they didn't know yesterday or last week. It will no doubt be parodied to death which might be entertaining but heroic it is not! My favourite so far is the bandaged Van Gogh!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Oxsboy05Dk

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,392
    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Put in into administration first.
    Whatever government decides, paying the owners a large dividend is going to make funding any solution more difficult, not easier.
    Possibly, but having experience of how administrators work you can guarantee nothing. I rather suspect, despite her cries over the years, Reeves doesnt actually have an industrial strategy.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,765

    geoffw said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Tidal power - works on 4 generating cycles a day - on incoming and outgoing tide twice a day. You only need an offset in tides between two locations of 3-4 hours to balance power generation. Cardiff and Colwyn Bay have been proposed for this reason.

    It was mentioned in the Labour manifesto, but not prominently. Pity MarqueeMark isn't here no to proselytise

    Swansea bay could have been up and running by now.

    Yes it was very expensive but most of that was the civil engineering works which would have lasted a century or more (far more if maintained well).
    My worry about tidal is wildlife: estuaries tend to be pretty valuable habitats. How do you not destroy that? How, for example, do you allow fish access/egress through a big dam you've put across the mouth of the estuary? Presumably it can be done?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,392

    geoffw said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Tidal power - works on 4 generating cycles a day - on incoming and outgoing tide twice a day. You only need an offset in tides between two locations of 3-4 hours to balance power generation. Cardiff and Colwyn Bay have been proposed for this reason.

    It was mentioned in the Labour manifesto, but not prominently. Pity MarqueeMark isn't here no to proselytise

    Swansea bay could have been up and running by now.

    Yes it was very expensive but most of that was the civil engineering works which would have lasted a century or more (far more if maintained well).

    That is the sort of thing Labour will have to overcome - and fast - if they are going to suceed with actions their good intentions with words.
    Norfolk in chance
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,103
    In a sense it IS staged, or at least opportunistic. Trump was at no risk when the photo was taken.

    Here's the continuous video for the 2 minutes from the first shot to the ambulance departure,

    00:53 "SHOOTER'S DOWN." Multiple times repeated.
    1:25 Trump steps out of his security guard shelter and does his raised fist gesture.

    https://youtu.be/LAk6dXEzIUo?t=50
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,504
    eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
    Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.

    These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.

    Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.

    So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,015
    MattW said:

    In a sense it IS staged, or at least opportunistic. Trump was at no risk when the photo was taken.

    Here's the continuous video for the 2 minutes from the first shot to the ambulance departure,

    00:53 "SHOOTER'S DOWN." Multiple times repeated.
    1:25 Trump steps out of his security guard shelter and does his raised fist gesture.

    https://youtu.be/LAk6dXEzIUo?t=50

    Sec.Serv. doctrine is to get the principal away from the scene asap, as there's always the possibility of a second shooter.
    "No risk" is an after the fact judgment.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,504
    Roger said:

    I cannot see it moving the dial an inch. It could give Trump the opportunity to do something meaningful while he has the spotlight on him but in an of itself not at all.

    It tells neither supporters nor opponents anything they didn't know yesterday or last week. It will no doubt be parodied to death which might be entertaining but heroic it is not! My favourite so far is the bandaged Van Gogh!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Oxsboy05Dk

    Agree about the Van Gogh. That made me laugh.
  • Cookie said:

    geoffw said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Tidal power - works on 4 generating cycles a day - on incoming and outgoing tide twice a day. You only need an offset in tides between two locations of 3-4 hours to balance power generation. Cardiff and Colwyn Bay have been proposed for this reason.

    It was mentioned in the Labour manifesto, but not prominently. Pity MarqueeMark isn't here no to proselytise

    Swansea bay could have been up and running by now.

    Yes it was very expensive but most of that was the civil engineering works which would have lasted a century or more (far more if maintained well).
    My worry about tidal is wildlife: estuaries tend to be pretty valuable habitats. How do you not destroy that? How, for example, do you allow fish access/egress through a big dam you've put across the mouth of the estuary? Presumably it can be done?
    I understand but, I don't think we have a choice.

    If we are not to regress to the 19th Century or earlier, then with current scientific knowledge and technology we have to be destructive of some environments.

    No one ever wants it to be their local one though.

    Although things like migrating fish getting past a dam assume someone has come up with some solution. A chain of weirs bypassing the dam perhaps?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,043

    eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
    Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.

    These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.

    Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.

    So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
    Presumably skills around building high reliability structures in the North Sea could be usefully transferred to work building high reliability structures of a different type in the North Sea?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,015
    edited July 15

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Put in into administration first.
    Whatever government decides, paying the owners a large dividend is going to make funding any solution more difficult, not easier.
    Possibly, but having experience of how administrators work you can guarantee nothing. I rather suspect, despite her cries over the years, Reeves doesnt actually have an industrial strategy.
    I'm agnostic on that.
    And I don't think a forced decision on this shipyard is particularly dispositive on the issue,

    You're right about the risks of administration, but there are no perfect, or even good solutions here. There's considerable risk involved if it were to be bailed out.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,228
    Nigelb said:

    MattW said:

    In a sense it IS staged, or at least opportunistic. Trump was at no risk when the photo was taken.

    Here's the continuous video for the 2 minutes from the first shot to the ambulance departure,

    00:53 "SHOOTER'S DOWN." Multiple times repeated.
    1:25 Trump steps out of his security guard shelter and does his raised fist gesture.

    https://youtu.be/LAk6dXEzIUo?t=50

    Sec.Serv. doctrine is to get the principal away from the scene asap, as there's always the possibility of a second shooter.
    "No risk" is an after the fact judgment.
    Yes, quite

    No one had any idea if there were more shooters. The working assumption is that there are - so you shuffle away the target ASAFP

    It was trumps choice to ignore that and stand up so he could look defiant and tough - and it worked - political instinct at its sharpest there

    It wouldn’t have looked quite so good if a 2nd shooter had taken him out as he shook his fist with defiance
  • eekeek Posts: 28,362

    eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
    Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.

    These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.

    Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.

    So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
    Thanks for that - the 100,000 figure looks accurate the 200,000 simply didn't. For instance I know some software houses who have products for the offshore market - I could see them reducing their staff from 20 to say 18 but the software is only a tiny part of their business (20% max)...
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 4,408
    Cookie said:

    geoffw said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Tidal power - works on 4 generating cycles a day - on incoming and outgoing tide twice a day. You only need an offset in tides between two locations of 3-4 hours to balance power generation. Cardiff and Colwyn Bay have been proposed for this reason.

    It was mentioned in the Labour manifesto, but not prominently. Pity MarqueeMark isn't here no to proselytise

    Swansea bay could have been up and running by now.

    Yes it was very expensive but most of that was the civil engineering works which would have lasted a century or more (far more if maintained well).
    My worry about tidal is wildlife: estuaries tend to be pretty valuable habitats. How do you not destroy that? How, for example, do you allow fish access/egress through a big dam you've put across the mouth of the estuary? Presumably it can be done?
    There's also the fact that tidal lagoons don't actually generate that much power. The nameplate capacity for Swansea Bay is 320 MW - about the same as a single SMR.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,015
    Great essay.

    What is the purpose of liberalism?
    Why we oppose political violence
    https://www.infinitescroll.us/p/what-is-the-purpose-of-liberalism
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,504

    eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
    Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.

    These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.

    Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.

    So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
    Presumably skills around building high reliability structures in the North Sea could be usefully transferred to work building high reliability structures of a different type in the North Sea?
    Not much of it is involved with building structures any more. It is all around well construction (which is a technical feat in itself), and ongoing operational work.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,809
    Nigelb said:

    MattW said:

    In a sense it IS staged, or at least opportunistic. Trump was at no risk when the photo was taken.

    Here's the continuous video for the 2 minutes from the first shot to the ambulance departure,

    00:53 "SHOOTER'S DOWN." Multiple times repeated.
    1:25 Trump steps out of his security guard shelter and does his raised fist gesture.

    https://youtu.be/LAk6dXEzIUo?t=50

    Sec.Serv. doctrine is to get the principal away from the scene asap, as there's always the possibility of a second shooter.
    "No risk" is an after the fact judgment.
    Yes. I mean if it was me in that situation even if I had heard “shooter’s down” there’s no way I would be thinking “oh, that’s ok then.” There might be another one lurking somewhere!

    And as a general note, if you are in an absolutely terrifying situation like that your brain is going to be going haywire and throwing up all sorts of weird responses. I did particularly note Trump asking about his shoes because that to me is really indicative of the brain stress response in moments like that - you can start focussing on weird minutiae rather than the bigger picture.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,876
    edited July 15
    Interestingly this one made the photographer famous though did nothing for the dead soldier.

    (Happily revisionist historians have suggested it was fake so perhaps the soldier still walks amongst us and the photographer's still famous)

    https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20131022-robert-capa-photo-warrior
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Maybe. Though Trump surviving an assassination attempt from a 20 year old incel who was so bad a shot he failed to make his high school rifle team with just a bloodied ear is not quite the same as the many US soldiers who were killed by the ruthless Japanese military before the flag raising on Iwo Jima

    Slightly missing the point there, @HYUFD

    ON topic, what surprises me is how willing liberal media are to use this image. The NYT has it plastered everywhere, page 1. 2, 3 and on. Endless

    They must know it is very powerful and already iconic and is great for Trump. Nonetheless they use it constantly, so that suggests it is SUCH a good photo the political disbenefits are outweighed by its catnip quality for readers

    It's one of the very great American photographs. Everything about it is perfect. You just have to use it.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,392
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Put in into administration first.
    Whatever government decides, paying the owners a large dividend is going to make funding any solution more difficult, not easier.
    Possibly, but having experience of how administrators work you can guarantee nothing. I rather suspect, despite her cries over the years, Reeves doesnt actually have an industrial strategy.
    I'm agnostic on that.
    And I don't think a forced decision on this shipyard is particularly dispositive on the issue,

    You're right about the risks of administration, but there are no perfect, or even good solutions here. There's considerable risk involved if it were to be bailed out.

    eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
    Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.

    These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.

    Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.

    So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
    I dont see why any of them have to be shut down early. Its a mad decision. I will probably have to close a factory next year if this goes ahead. A small sub contractor 80% dependent on the North Sea. You cant keep the place open on the 20% thats left. So 12 decent and hardworking people get shot because idiots like Miliband want to grandstand.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,545

    Cookie said:

    geoffw said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Tidal power - works on 4 generating cycles a day - on incoming and outgoing tide twice a day. You only need an offset in tides between two locations of 3-4 hours to balance power generation. Cardiff and Colwyn Bay have been proposed for this reason.

    It was mentioned in the Labour manifesto, but not prominently. Pity MarqueeMark isn't here no to proselytise

    Swansea bay could have been up and running by now.

    Yes it was very expensive but most of that was the civil engineering works which would have lasted a century or more (far more if maintained well).
    My worry about tidal is wildlife: estuaries tend to be pretty valuable habitats. How do you not destroy that? How, for example, do you allow fish access/egress through a big dam you've put across the mouth of the estuary? Presumably it can be done?
    There's also the fact that tidal lagoons don't actually generate that much power. The nameplate capacity for Swansea Bay is 320 MW - about the same as a single SMR.
    As I said on the previous thread; the small gas powered CCGT power station down the road from me generates ~700MW. On what feels like a tiny site. (It actually looks more like an incinerator than a power station... https://maps.app.goo.gl/oKZtwWgZDCyikwdw9 )
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,392
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Put in into administration first.
    Whatever government decides, paying the owners a large dividend is going to make funding any solution more difficult, not easier.
    Possibly, but having experience of how administrators work you can guarantee nothing. I rather suspect, despite her cries over the years, Reeves doesnt actually have an industrial strategy.
    I'm agnostic on that.
    And I don't think a forced decision on this shipyard is particularly dispositive on the issue,

    You're right about the risks of administration, but there are no perfect, or even good solutions here. There's considerable risk involved if it were to be bailed out.
    The main risk is Reeves runs out of money to fund her other projects like rail privatisation or water, You could keep Harland going as the customer is ultimately HMG. But aircraft wings thats a much harder propsect as it depends on commercial contracts.
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405
    Cookie said:

    geoffw said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Tidal power - works on 4 generating cycles a day - on incoming and outgoing tide twice a day. You only need an offset in tides between two locations of 3-4 hours to balance power generation. Cardiff and Colwyn Bay have been proposed for this reason.

    It was mentioned in the Labour manifesto, but not prominently. Pity MarqueeMark isn't here no to proselytise

    Swansea bay could have been up and running by now.

    Yes it was very expensive but most of that was the civil engineering works which would have lasted a century or more (far more if maintained well).
    My worry about tidal is wildlife: estuaries tend to be pretty valuable habitats. How do you not destroy that? How, for example, do you allow fish access/egress through a big dam you've put across the mouth of the estuary? Presumably it can be done?
    You can do it in disused docks presumably? For fish you put in fish ladders (but there's no salmon anyway)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,015

    Cookie said:

    geoffw said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Tidal power - works on 4 generating cycles a day - on incoming and outgoing tide twice a day. You only need an offset in tides between two locations of 3-4 hours to balance power generation. Cardiff and Colwyn Bay have been proposed for this reason.

    It was mentioned in the Labour manifesto, but not prominently. Pity MarqueeMark isn't here no to proselytise

    Swansea bay could have been up and running by now.

    Yes it was very expensive but most of that was the civil engineering works which would have lasted a century or more (far more if maintained well).
    My worry about tidal is wildlife: estuaries tend to be pretty valuable habitats. How do you not destroy that? How, for example, do you allow fish access/egress through a big dam you've put across the mouth of the estuary? Presumably it can be done?
    There's also the fact that tidal lagoons don't actually generate that much power. The nameplate capacity for Swansea Bay is 320 MW - about the same as a single SMR.
    Cardiff was supposed to be around 2GW+, though, wasn't it ?
    Swansea obvs isn't going to balance that, but other projects might.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,015

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Put in into administration first.
    Whatever government decides, paying the owners a large dividend is going to make funding any solution more difficult, not easier.
    Possibly, but having experience of how administrators work you can guarantee nothing. I rather suspect, despite her cries over the years, Reeves doesnt actually have an industrial strategy.
    I'm agnostic on that.
    And I don't think a forced decision on this shipyard is particularly dispositive on the issue,

    You're right about the risks of administration, but there are no perfect, or even good solutions here. There's considerable risk involved if it were to be bailed out.
    The main risk is Reeves runs out of money to fund her other projects like rail privatisation or water, You could keep Harland going as the customer is ultimately HMG. But aircraft wings thats a much harder propsect as it depends on commercial contracts.
    Yes, and the defence review is going to be at least six months, probably a year to complete, so any planning to repurpose Shorts for military procurement isn't really a present option.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,575
    edited July 15
    ‘Morning Joe’ pulled from air Monday by MSNBC because of Trump shooting

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/14/media/msnbc-morning-joe-pulled-trump-assassination/index.html

    A person familiar with the matter told CNN that the decision was made to avoid a scenario in which one of the show’s stable of two dozen-plus guests might make an inappropriate comment on live television that could be used to assail the program and network as a whole.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,043

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Put in into administration first.
    Whatever government decides, paying the owners a large dividend is going to make funding any solution more difficult, not easier.
    Possibly, but having experience of how administrators work you can guarantee nothing. I rather suspect, despite her cries over the years, Reeves doesnt actually have an industrial strategy.
    I'm agnostic on that.
    And I don't think a forced decision on this shipyard is particularly dispositive on the issue,

    You're right about the risks of administration, but there are no perfect, or even good solutions here. There's considerable risk involved if it were to be bailed out.

    eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
    Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.

    These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.

    Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.

    So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
    I dont see why any of them have to be shut down early. Its a mad decision. I will probably have to close a factory next year if this goes ahead. A small sub contractor 80% dependent on the North Sea. You cant keep the place open on the 20% thats left. So 12 decent and hardworking people get shot because idiots like Miliband want to grandstand.

    Climate change is real and a serious problem. We need to transition the economy away from fossil fuels. We can't just ignore that reality because there will be individual job losses.

    Thatcher knew that we had to close the coal mines, which also saw decent and hardworking people out of work, more than 200,000 of them. We can do better than Thatcher by supporting the transition better.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,765

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Maybe. Though Trump surviving an assassination attempt from a 20 year old incel who was so bad a shot he failed to make his high school rifle team with just a bloodied ear is not quite the same as the many US soldiers who were killed by the ruthless Japanese military before the flag raising on Iwo Jima

    Slightly missing the point there, @HYUFD

    ON topic, what surprises me is how willing liberal media are to use this image. The NYT has it plastered everywhere, page 1. 2, 3 and on. Endless

    They must know it is very powerful and already iconic and is great for Trump. Nonetheless they use it constantly, so that suggests it is SUCH a good photo the political disbenefits are outweighed by its catnip quality for readers

    It's one of the very great American photographs. Everything about it is perfect. You just have to use it.

    It is, isn't it? Flag. Blue sky. Man with raised fist. Blood. Man in black suit and sunglasses. Two other people.
    Brilliant.
  • booksellerbookseller Posts: 507

    eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
    Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.

    These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.

    Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.

    So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
    Rosebank is estimated to create 1.6K jobs (during construction ahead of 'first oil' in 2026) but this will fall off once construction done. We're subsidising this to the tune of half a billion, but profits will largely be rapatriated to Norway/Israel companies (the joint venture partners).

    Not sure where your 100K O&G jobs comes from, but you get many more jobs from renewables (including wave).

    Even if you want to 'protect' these 100K jobs, doubling down on this amount of fossil fuel investment - subsidised, foreign-owned, sunset industry - is suicidal both economically and environmentally, no?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,391
    Cookie said:

    geoffw said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Tidal power - works on 4 generating cycles a day - on incoming and outgoing tide twice a day. You only need an offset in tides between two locations of 3-4 hours to balance power generation. Cardiff and Colwyn Bay have been proposed for this reason.

    It was mentioned in the Labour manifesto, but not prominently. Pity MarqueeMark isn't here no to proselytise

    Swansea bay could have been up and running by now.

    Yes it was very expensive but most of that was the civil engineering works which would have lasted a century or more (far more if maintained well).
    My worry about tidal is wildlife: estuaries tend to be pretty valuable habitats. How do you not destroy that? How, for example, do you allow fish access/egress through a big dam you've put across the mouth of the estuary? Presumably it can be done?
    You don't have to damn the whole estuary, just capture enough in an artificial basin.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,392

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Put in into administration first.
    Whatever government decides, paying the owners a large dividend is going to make funding any solution more difficult, not easier.
    Possibly, but having experience of how administrators work you can guarantee nothing. I rather suspect, despite her cries over the years, Reeves doesnt actually have an industrial strategy.
    I'm agnostic on that.
    And I don't think a forced decision on this shipyard is particularly dispositive on the issue,

    You're right about the risks of administration, but there are no perfect, or even good solutions here. There's considerable risk involved if it were to be bailed out.

    eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
    Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.

    These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.

    Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.

    So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
    I dont see why any of them have to be shut down early. Its a mad decision. I will probably have to close a factory next year if this goes ahead. A small sub contractor 80% dependent on the North Sea. You cant keep the place open on the 20% thats left. So 12 decent and hardworking people get shot because idiots like Miliband want to grandstand.

    Climate change is real and a serious problem. We need to transition the economy away from fossil fuels. We can't just ignore that reality because there will be individual job losses.

    Thatcher knew that we had to close the coal mines, which also saw decent and hardworking people out of work, more than 200,000 of them. We can do better than Thatcher by supporting the transition better.
    Firstly for the foreseeable future the UK will be burning oil and gas, simply importing it doesnt stop us burning CO2

    Secondly there is no transition plan that I can see. Perhaps you know different ?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,545

    Cookie said:

    geoffw said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Tidal power - works on 4 generating cycles a day - on incoming and outgoing tide twice a day. You only need an offset in tides between two locations of 3-4 hours to balance power generation. Cardiff and Colwyn Bay have been proposed for this reason.

    It was mentioned in the Labour manifesto, but not prominently. Pity MarqueeMark isn't here no to proselytise

    Swansea bay could have been up and running by now.

    Yes it was very expensive but most of that was the civil engineering works which would have lasted a century or more (far more if maintained well).
    My worry about tidal is wildlife: estuaries tend to be pretty valuable habitats. How do you not destroy that? How, for example, do you allow fish access/egress through a big dam you've put across the mouth of the estuary? Presumably it can be done?
    You can do it in disused docks presumably? For fish you put in fish ladders (but there's no salmon anyway)
    A disused dock holds a tiny amount of water, power-wise. The King George V dry dock in Southampton - the largest in the world for decades - held 58 million gallons. The Swansea Bay lagoon would hold 175 billion - 3,000 times more (1). And that generates only 320MW. Scaling down (dangerous, I know), putting power generation on the King George V dock (after putting the gates back in...) would generate 100KW.

    Hope I've got the maths right there...

    (1): https://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/swansea-bay-tidal-lagoon-what-11999320

  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    A friend of mine, not a Trumpite, said to me yesterday

    "My God, that photo, made me want to vote for him"

    Given that he lives in Truro, Cornwall this should not unduly influence the US elex - he hasn't got a vote; but I thought it was an interesting reaction. And it supports your thesis

    How odd. None of my friends have said anything like that. However Pulpstar is not wrong. The assassination attempt does help Donald Trump. It helps in several ways:

    The 'heroic' image as discussed. Personally I think he looks a bit of a bellend there but there will be those who are stirred by it. It adds something to his brand which was previously missing. Physical courage. Up to now he's tended to come across as what he is - flabby, vain and cowardly. It's the vanity that has driven this response/photo but it can look like courage. To some it will.

    It throttles the DEM's main line of attack - the warning that he's a threat to democracy and the constitution. This charge, although entirely justified, can now be painted as a demonisation exercise that has led to him almost being murdered. It provides the GOP with their own iconic date (13th July) to play against the DEM's Jan 6th. There's no equivalence, Jan 6th was instigated by Trump and perpetrated by his followers, whereas July 13th was a lone nutcase and zero to do with Biden, but this will only matter to people who can think properly. Plenty can't.

    Finally, icing on the cake, it likely cements Joe Biden in place as the DEM candidate, gifting Trump with an opponent too frail to campaign effectively and clearly too frail to serve a second term.

    So, all told, the catastrophic prospect of Trump2 has been rendered more likely by this dreadful event. Thank you, Thomas Matthew Crooks, thanks a bunch.
    I am trying to start a viral campaign to get Biden to award trump a purple heart.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,392
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Put in into administration first.
    Whatever government decides, paying the owners a large dividend is going to make funding any solution more difficult, not easier.
    Possibly, but having experience of how administrators work you can guarantee nothing. I rather suspect, despite her cries over the years, Reeves doesnt actually have an industrial strategy.
    I'm agnostic on that.
    And I don't think a forced decision on this shipyard is particularly dispositive on the issue,

    You're right about the risks of administration, but there are no perfect, or even good solutions here. There's considerable risk involved if it were to be bailed out.
    The main risk is Reeves runs out of money to fund her other projects like rail privatisation or water, You could keep Harland going as the customer is ultimately HMG. But aircraft wings thats a much harder propsect as it depends on commercial contracts.
    Yes, and the defence review is going to be at least six months, probably a year to complete, so any planning to repurpose Shorts for military procurement isn't really a present option.
    Not unless they can shift a lot of jobs to the missile makers across the road. We sort of need lots of missiles atm.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,575
    kinabalu said:

    It throttles the DEM's main line of attack - the warning that he's a threat to democracy and the constitution. This charge, although entirely justified, can now be painted as a demonisation exercise that has led to him almost being murdered.

    The problem is trying to have it both ways, as you are doing here.

    If he's an American Hitler then why is assassination a step too far? They can't distance themselves from their own rhetoric without revealing that they don't really believe it and never have done.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569

    ‘Morning Joe’ pulled from air Monday by MSNBC because of Trump shooting

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/14/media/msnbc-morning-joe-pulled-trump-assassination/index.html

    A person familiar with the matter told CNN that the decision was made to avoid a scenario in which one of the show’s stable of two dozen-plus guests might make an inappropriate comment on live television that could be used to assail the program and network as a whole.

    More like they’re worried their star presenter might say something inappropriate.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,743

    kinabalu said:

    It throttles the DEM's main line of attack - the warning that he's a threat to democracy and the constitution. This charge, although entirely justified, can now be painted as a demonisation exercise that has led to him almost being murdered.

    The problem is trying to have it both ways, as you are doing here.

    If he's an American Hitler then why is assassination a step too far? They can't distance themselves from their own rhetoric without revealing that they don't really believe it and never have done.
    Arguments like this make the Tory election campaign we've just endured seem honest by comparison!
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,103
    Good commentary on Judge Cannon's Mar-a-Lago stolen documents case.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADgQZwuPyt4
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,998
    FPT: Sandpit said: "There does appear to be one of these every couple of weeks at the moment. How’s about men’s prisons stop employing women as guards? If nothing else, it must be a safety risk to the women."

    A few years ago, there were similar problems in a prison in Baltimore, Maryland. A state senator suggested replacing women guards with ugly men in men's prisons. (As the state senator was an older black woman, she could get away with saying something commonsensical like that.) I don't think the state followed her advice.)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,687
    Vance back as fav for veep.
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405

    Cookie said:

    geoffw said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Tidal power - works on 4 generating cycles a day - on incoming and outgoing tide twice a day. You only need an offset in tides between two locations of 3-4 hours to balance power generation. Cardiff and Colwyn Bay have been proposed for this reason.

    It was mentioned in the Labour manifesto, but not prominently. Pity MarqueeMark isn't here no to proselytise

    Swansea bay could have been up and running by now.

    Yes it was very expensive but most of that was the civil engineering works which would have lasted a century or more (far more if maintained well).
    My worry about tidal is wildlife: estuaries tend to be pretty valuable habitats. How do you not destroy that? How, for example, do you allow fish access/egress through a big dam you've put across the mouth of the estuary? Presumably it can be done?
    You can do it in disused docks presumably? For fish you put in fish ladders (but there's no salmon anyway)
    A disused dock holds a tiny amount of water, power-wise. The King George V dry dock in Southampton - the largest in the world for decades - held 58 million gallons. The Swansea Bay lagoon would hold 175 billion - 3,000 times more (1). And that generates only 320MW. Scaling down (dangerous, I know), putting power generation on the King George V dock (after putting the gates back in...) would generate 100KW.

    Hope I've got the maths right there...

    (1): https://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/swansea-bay-tidal-lagoon-what-11999320

    I was thinking The Docks overall not an individual one. Eg port of hull is 800 ha. Swansea lagoon 950 ha. Same ballpark. But I suppose the port has other uses.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,687
    Wasn't the Iwo Jima photo staged?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,409
    HYUFD said:

    Maybe. Though Trump surviving an assassination attempt from a 20 year old incel who was so bad a shot he failed to make his high school rifle team with just a bloodied ear is not quite the same as the many US soldiers who were killed by the ruthless Japanese military before the flag raising on Iwo Jima

    Did he need a bloodied extremity to qualify for the school rifle team?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,575
    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    It throttles the DEM's main line of attack - the warning that he's a threat to democracy and the constitution. This charge, although entirely justified, can now be painted as a demonisation exercise that has led to him almost being murdered.

    The problem is trying to have it both ways, as you are doing here.

    If he's an American Hitler then why is assassination a step too far? They can't distance themselves from their own rhetoric without revealing that they don't really believe it and never have done.
    Arguments like this make the Tory election campaign we've just endured seem honest by comparison!
    Which part of it do you disagree with?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,687
    edited July 15
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    A friend of mine, not a Trumpite, said to me yesterday

    "My God, that photo, made me want to vote for him"

    Given that he lives in Truro, Cornwall this should not unduly influence the US elex - he hasn't got a vote; but I thought it was an interesting reaction. And it supports your thesis

    How odd. None of my friends have said anything like that. However Pulpstar is not wrong. The assassination attempt does help Donald Trump. It helps in several ways:

    The 'heroic' image as discussed. Personally I think he looks a bit of a bellend there but there will be those who are stirred by it. It adds something to his brand which was previously missing. Physical courage. Up to now he's tended to come across as what he is - flabby, vain and cowardly. It's the vanity that has driven this response/photo but it can look like courage. To some it will.

    It throttles the DEM's main line of attack - the warning that he's a threat to democracy and the constitution. This charge, although entirely justified, can now be painted as a demonisation exercise that has led to him almost being murdered. It provides the GOP with their own iconic date (13th July) to play against the DEM's Jan 6th. There's no equivalence, Jan 6th was instigated by Trump and perpetrated by his followers, whereas July 13th was a lone nutcase and zero to do with Biden, but this will only matter to people who can think properly. Plenty can't.

    Finally, icing on the cake, it likely cements Joe Biden in place as the DEM candidate, gifting Trump with an opponent too frail to campaign effectively and clearly too frail to serve a second term.

    So, all told, the catastrophic prospect of Trump2 has been rendered more likely by this dreadful event. Thank you, Thomas Matthew Crooks, thanks a bunch.
    Trump is having an astonishingly good few days.

    A judge threw out another case earlier to add to his momentum.

    He looks unstoppable now frankly, but my view is that he won anyway on the evening Biden did debate and showed everyone he was too old to govern any longer.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,409

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Put in into administration first.
    Whatever government decides, paying the owners a large dividend is going to make funding any solution more difficult, not easier.
    Possibly, but having experience of how administrators work you can guarantee nothing. I rather suspect, despite her cries over the years, Reeves doesnt actually have an industrial strategy.
    I'm agnostic on that.
    And I don't think a forced decision on this shipyard is particularly dispositive on the issue,

    You're right about the risks of administration, but there are no perfect, or even good solutions here. There's considerable risk involved if it were to be bailed out.

    eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
    Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.

    These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.

    Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.

    So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
    I dont see why any of them have to be shut down early. Its a mad decision. I will probably have to close a factory next year if this goes ahead. A small sub contractor 80% dependent on the North Sea. You cant keep the place open on the 20% thats left. So 12 decent and hardworking people get shot because idiots like Miliband want to grandstand.

    Climate change is real and a serious problem. We need to transition the economy away from fossil fuels. We can't just ignore that reality because there will be individual job losses.

    Thatcher knew that we had to close the coal mines, which also saw decent and hardworking people out of work, more than 200,000 of them. We can do better than Thatcher by supporting the transition better.
    This does nothing to 'transition the economy away' from fossil fuels, it simply means those fossil fuels are imported, at great monetary and environmental cost.

    No person who believed sincerely in minimising carbon emissions, as opposed to being on a sociopathic mission to destroy Britain's economy, would welcome this sort of move.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,540
    Cookie said:

    geoffw said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Tidal power - works on 4 generating cycles a day - on incoming and outgoing tide twice a day. You only need an offset in tides between two locations of 3-4 hours to balance power generation. Cardiff and Colwyn Bay have been proposed for this reason.

    It was mentioned in the Labour manifesto, but not prominently. Pity MarqueeMark isn't here no to proselytise

    Swansea bay could have been up and running by now.

    Yes it was very expensive but most of that was the civil engineering works which would have lasted a century or more (far more if maintained well).
    My worry about tidal is wildlife: estuaries tend to be pretty valuable habitats. How do you not destroy that? How, for example, do you allow fish access/egress through a big dam you've put across the mouth of the estuary? Presumably it can be done?
    That's why the Swansea Bay idea hasn't happened.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    A friend of mine, not a Trumpite, said to me yesterday

    "My God, that photo, made me want to vote for him"

    Given that he lives in Truro, Cornwall this should not unduly influence the US elex - he hasn't got a vote; but I thought it was an interesting reaction. And it supports your thesis

    How odd. None of my friends have said anything like that. However Pulpstar is not wrong. The assassination attempt does help Donald Trump. It helps in several ways:

    The 'heroic' image as discussed. Personally I think he looks a bit of a bellend there but there will be those who are stirred by it. It adds something to his brand which was previously missing. Physical courage. Up to now he's tended to come across as what he is - flabby, vain and cowardly. It's the vanity that has driven this response/photo but it can look like courage. To some it will.

    It throttles the DEM's main line of attack - the warning that he's a threat to democracy and the constitution. This charge, although entirely justified, can now be painted as a demonisation exercise that has led to him almost being murdered. It provides the GOP with their own iconic date (13th July) to play against the DEM's Jan 6th. There's no equivalence, Jan 6th was instigated by Trump and perpetrated by his followers, whereas July 13th was a lone nutcase and zero to do with Biden, but this will only matter to people who can think properly. Plenty can't.

    Finally, icing on the cake, it likely cements Joe Biden in place as the DEM candidate, gifting Trump with an opponent too frail to campaign effectively and clearly too frail to serve a second term.

    So, all told, the catastrophic prospect of Trump2 has been rendered more likely by this dreadful event. Thank you, Thomas Matthew Crooks, thanks a bunch.
    It might be as desperate as you suggest. Alternatively you might have been reading too much @Leon .

    Let us see how the land lies by the Dem Convention. Although that probably means another month of Leon spamming the site with his ejaculations over the Presidential Election.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,103
    edited July 15
    Nigelb said:

    MattW said:

    In a sense it IS staged, or at least opportunistic. Trump was at no risk when the photo was taken.

    Here's the continuous video for the 2 minutes from the first shot to the ambulance departure,

    00:53 "SHOOTER'S DOWN." Multiple times repeated.
    1:25 Trump steps out of his security guard shelter and does his raised fist gesture.

    https://youtu.be/LAk6dXEzIUo?t=50

    Sec.Serv. doctrine is to get the principal away from the scene asap, as there's always the possibility of a second shooter.
    "No risk" is an after the fact judgment.
    They didn't get the principal away asap. The principal stopped them for 10 seconds so he could stick his head above the security cordon, and have his photo taken.

    You can even hear Trump saying "Wait! Wait!" at 1:23 here:
    https://youtu.be/LAk6dXEzIUo?t=81

    "Shooter down" repeated multiple times is pretty conclusive.

    When he gets to the edge of the stage, he stops them again to pose and wave to the crowd.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,590
    MattW said:

    In a sense it IS staged, or at least opportunistic. Trump was at no risk when the photo was taken.

    Here's the continuous video for the 2 minutes from the first shot to the ambulance departure,

    00:53 "SHOOTER'S DOWN." Multiple times repeated.
    1:25 Trump steps out of his security guard shelter and does his raised fist gesture.

    https://youtu.be/LAk6dXEzIUo?t=50

    The point isn't that he's moronically impervious to risk, it's that he was able to keep his show on the road under extreme pressure - 32 seconds is not exactly a long time for someone to process under that stress.

    It's pure vibes but they're clearly very positive for him.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,590

    Vance back as fav for veep.

    Just filmed leaving home in a full motorcade.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,575
    maaarsh said:

    MattW said:

    In a sense it IS staged, or at least opportunistic. Trump was at no risk when the photo was taken.

    Here's the continuous video for the 2 minutes from the first shot to the ambulance departure,

    00:53 "SHOOTER'S DOWN." Multiple times repeated.
    1:25 Trump steps out of his security guard shelter and does his raised fist gesture.

    https://youtu.be/LAk6dXEzIUo?t=50

    The point isn't that he's moronically impervious to risk, it's that he was able to keep his show on the road under extreme pressure - 32 seconds is not exactly a long time for someone to process under that stress.

    It's pure vibes but they're clearly very positive for him.
    If he hadn't done that and just been bundled out with blood clearly visible on his head, the narrative would have been very different and dominated by speculation about his condition. That gesture may have saved America from serious unrest.
  • booksellerbookseller Posts: 507

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Put in into administration first.
    Whatever government decides, paying the owners a large dividend is going to make funding any solution more difficult, not easier.
    Possibly, but having experience of how administrators work you can guarantee nothing. I rather suspect, despite her cries over the years, Reeves doesnt actually have an industrial strategy.
    I'm agnostic on that.
    And I don't think a forced decision on this shipyard is particularly dispositive on the issue,

    You're right about the risks of administration, but there are no perfect, or even good solutions here. There's considerable risk involved if it were to be bailed out.

    eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
    Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.

    These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.

    Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.

    So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
    I dont see why any of them have to be shut down early. Its a mad decision. I will probably have to close a factory next year if this goes ahead. A small sub contractor 80% dependent on the North Sea. You cant keep the place open on the 20% thats left. So 12 decent and hardworking people get shot because idiots like Miliband want to grandstand.

    Climate change is real and a serious problem. We need to transition the economy away from fossil fuels. We can't just ignore that reality because there will be individual job losses.

    Thatcher knew that we had to close the coal mines, which also saw decent and hardworking people out of work, more than 200,000 of them. We can do better than Thatcher by supporting the transition better.
    This does nothing to 'transition the economy away' from fossil fuels, it simply means those fossil fuels are imported, at great monetary and environmental cost.

    No person who believed sincerely in minimising carbon emissions, as opposed to being on a sociopathic mission to destroy Britain's economy, would welcome this sort of move.
    Well, I didn't have 'sociopathic mission to destroy the economy' on the first 100 days bingo card...

    Ignoring the hysterical hyperbole, those 12 jobs to be set against the literally thousands of new jobs, investment returns and export potential of leading on renewables and transitioning away from fossil fuels.

    (All the Rosebank oil will be exported incidentally. Ebbs and flows of oil stocks plus different grades of crude)
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,103
    edited July 15

    maaarsh said:

    MattW said:

    In a sense it IS staged, or at least opportunistic. Trump was at no risk when the photo was taken.

    Here's the continuous video for the 2 minutes from the first shot to the ambulance departure,

    00:53 "SHOOTER'S DOWN." Multiple times repeated.
    1:25 Trump steps out of his security guard shelter and does his raised fist gesture.

    https://youtu.be/LAk6dXEzIUo?t=50

    The point isn't that he's moronically impervious to risk, it's that he was able to keep his show on the road under extreme pressure - 32 seconds is not exactly a long time for someone to process under that stress.

    It's pure vibes but they're clearly very positive for him.
    If he hadn't done that and just been bundled out with blood clearly visible on his head, the narrative would have been very different and dominated by speculation about his condition. That gesture may have saved America from serious unrest.
    He could have done his "look I'm alive" appearance a mile away 5 minutes later.

    But he didn't. He stopped his security taking him away immediately.

    It's very different as to how the Reagan assassination attempt was handled in 1982 - Reagan was just bundled straight into the car.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1Jid5uRFo4

  • booksellerbookseller Posts: 507

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Put in into administration first.
    Whatever government decides, paying the owners a large dividend is going to make funding any solution more difficult, not easier.
    Possibly, but having experience of how administrators work you can guarantee nothing. I rather suspect, despite her cries over the years, Reeves doesnt actually have an industrial strategy.
    I'm agnostic on that.
    And I don't think a forced decision on this shipyard is particularly dispositive on the issue,

    You're right about the risks of administration, but there are no perfect, or even good solutions here. There's considerable risk involved if it were to be bailed out.

    eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
    Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.

    These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.

    Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.

    So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
    I dont see why any of them have to be shut down early. Its a mad decision. I will probably have to close a factory next year if this goes ahead. A small sub contractor 80% dependent on the North Sea. You cant keep the place open on the 20% thats left. So 12 decent and hardworking people get shot because idiots like Miliband want to grandstand.

    Climate change is real and a serious problem. We need to transition the economy away from fossil fuels. We can't just ignore that reality because there will be individual job losses.

    Thatcher knew that we had to close the coal mines, which also saw decent and hardworking people out of work, more than 200,000 of them. We can do better than Thatcher by supporting the transition better.
    Firstly for the foreseeable future the UK will be burning oil and gas, simply importing it doesnt stop us burning CO2

    Secondly there is no transition plan that I can see. Perhaps you know different ?
    Seriously? Are we so impotent and lacking in gumption post-Brexit that we can't come up with a transition plan, given so many are lying about?

    "We don't have a plan so let's not change anything?"

    Wow.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    MattW said:

    Nigelb said:

    MattW said:

    In a sense it IS staged, or at least opportunistic. Trump was at no risk when the photo was taken.

    Here's the continuous video for the 2 minutes from the first shot to the ambulance departure,

    00:53 "SHOOTER'S DOWN." Multiple times repeated.
    1:25 Trump steps out of his security guard shelter and does his raised fist gesture.

    https://youtu.be/LAk6dXEzIUo?t=50

    Sec.Serv. doctrine is to get the principal away from the scene asap, as there's always the possibility of a second shooter.
    "No risk" is an after the fact judgment.
    They didn't get the principal away asap. The principal stopped them for 10 seconds so he could stick his head above the security cordon, and have his photo taken.

    You can even hear Trump saying "Wait! Wait!" at 1:23 here:
    https://youtu.be/LAk6dXEzIUo?t=81

    "Shooter down" repeatd multiple times is pretty conclusive.
    Somewhat reminiscent of Theordore Roosevelt in 1912, when the ex-President was shot by a would-be assassin, and refused medical treatment in favor of giving his speech.

    TR did it because he thought it his BIG opportunity to win re-election.

    DJT's motivation, which led to The Picture, may have been similar, and also instinctive (ditto Teddy).
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,103

    MattW said:

    Nigelb said:

    MattW said:

    In a sense it IS staged, or at least opportunistic. Trump was at no risk when the photo was taken.

    Here's the continuous video for the 2 minutes from the first shot to the ambulance departure,

    00:53 "SHOOTER'S DOWN." Multiple times repeated.
    1:25 Trump steps out of his security guard shelter and does his raised fist gesture.

    https://youtu.be/LAk6dXEzIUo?t=50

    Sec.Serv. doctrine is to get the principal away from the scene asap, as there's always the possibility of a second shooter.
    "No risk" is an after the fact judgment.
    They didn't get the principal away asap. The principal stopped them for 10 seconds so he could stick his head above the security cordon, and have his photo taken.

    You can even hear Trump saying "Wait! Wait!" at 1:23 here:
    https://youtu.be/LAk6dXEzIUo?t=81

    "Shooter down" repeatd multiple times is pretty conclusive.
    Somewhat reminiscent of Theordore Roosevelt in 1912, when the ex-President was shot by a would-be assassin, and refused medical treatment in favor of giving his speech.

    TR did it because he thought it his BIG opportunity to win re-election.

    DJT's motivation, which led to The Picture, may have been similar, and also instinctive (ditto Teddy).
    It's notable that with Reagan they had thrown him inside the car within 6-7 seconds of the first shot occurring.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569

    maaarsh said:

    MattW said:

    In a sense it IS staged, or at least opportunistic. Trump was at no risk when the photo was taken.

    Here's the continuous video for the 2 minutes from the first shot to the ambulance departure,

    00:53 "SHOOTER'S DOWN." Multiple times repeated.
    1:25 Trump steps out of his security guard shelter and does his raised fist gesture.

    https://youtu.be/LAk6dXEzIUo?t=50

    The point isn't that he's moronically impervious to risk, it's that he was able to keep his show on the road under extreme pressure - 32 seconds is not exactly a long time for someone to process under that stress.

    It's pure vibes but they're clearly very positive for him.
    If he hadn't done that and just been bundled out with blood clearly visible on his head, the narrative would have been very different and dominated by speculation about his condition. That gesture may have saved America from serious unrest.
    You can understand why he wanted to reassure the crowd before he left the stage, but the USSS should really have just picked him up and dragged him off the stage. They’re trained to be on guard for a second shooter.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,540
    Nigelb said:

    Great essay.

    What is the purpose of liberalism?
    Why we oppose political violence
    https://www.infinitescroll.us/p/what-is-the-purpose-of-liberalism

    "Hundreds of years ago, pre-Enlightenment, Europeans discovered that they didn’t really agree on the nature of Christianity. Some were Catholic and followed the pope. Others were defecting to newer, hipper versions of Protestantism. Their solution to this problem was to murder each other."
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,392
    edited July 15

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Put in into administration first.
    Whatever government decides, paying the owners a large dividend is going to make funding any solution more difficult, not easier.
    Possibly, but having experience of how administrators work you can guarantee nothing. I rather suspect, despite her cries over the years, Reeves doesnt actually have an industrial strategy.
    I'm agnostic on that.
    And I don't think a forced decision on this shipyard is particularly dispositive on the issue,

    You're right about the risks of administration, but there are no perfect, or even good solutions here. There's considerable risk involved if it were to be bailed out.

    eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
    Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.

    These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.

    Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.

    So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
    I dont see why any of them have to be shut down early. Its a mad decision. I will probably have to close a factory next year if this goes ahead. A small sub contractor 80% dependent on the North Sea. You cant keep the place open on the 20% thats left. So 12 decent and hardworking people get shot because idiots like Miliband want to grandstand.

    Climate change is real and a serious problem. We need to transition the economy away from fossil fuels. We can't just ignore that reality because there will be individual job losses.

    Thatcher knew that we had to close the coal mines, which also saw decent and hardworking people out of work, more than 200,000 of them. We can do better than Thatcher by supporting the transition better.
    This does nothing to 'transition the economy away' from fossil fuels, it simply means those fossil fuels are imported, at great monetary and environmental cost.

    No person who believed sincerely in minimising carbon emissions, as opposed to being on a sociopathic mission to destroy Britain's economy, would welcome this sort of move.
    Well, I didn't have 'sociopathic mission to destroy the economy' on the first 100 days bingo card...

    Ignoring the hysterical hyperbole, those 12 jobs to be set against the literally thousands of new jobs, investment returns and export potential of leading on renewables and transitioning away from fossil fuels.

    (All the Rosebank oil will be exported incidentally. Ebbs and flows of oil stocks plus different grades of crude)
    You can have all the new jobs as well as the existing ones. I thought "growth " was the big thing ?
  • booksellerbookseller Posts: 507

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Put in into administration first.
    Whatever government decides, paying the owners a large dividend is going to make funding any solution more difficult, not easier.
    Possibly, but having experience of how administrators work you can guarantee nothing. I rather suspect, despite her cries over the years, Reeves doesnt actually have an industrial strategy.
    I'm agnostic on that.
    And I don't think a forced decision on this shipyard is particularly dispositive on the issue,

    You're right about the risks of administration, but there are no perfect, or even good solutions here. There's considerable risk involved if it were to be bailed out.

    eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
    Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.

    These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.

    Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.

    So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
    I dont see why any of them have to be shut down early. Its a mad decision. I will probably have to close a factory next year if this goes ahead. A small sub contractor 80% dependent on the North Sea. You cant keep the place open on the 20% thats left. So 12 decent and hardworking people get shot because idiots like Miliband want to grandstand.

    Climate change is real and a serious problem. We need to transition the economy away from fossil fuels. We can't just ignore that reality because there will be individual job losses.

    Thatcher knew that we had to close the coal mines, which also saw decent and hardworking people out of work, more than 200,000 of them. We can do better than Thatcher by supporting the transition better.
    This does nothing to 'transition the economy away' from fossil fuels, it simply means those fossil fuels are imported, at great monetary and environmental cost.

    No person who believed sincerely in minimising carbon emissions, as opposed to being on a sociopathic mission to destroy Britain's economy, would welcome this sort of move.
    Well, I didn't have 'sociopathic mission to destroy the economy' on the first 100 days bingo card...

    Ignoring the hysterical hyperbole, those 12 jobs to be set against the literally thousands of new jobs, investment returns and export potential of leading on renewables and transitioning away from fossil fuels.

    (All the Rosebank oil will be exported incidentally. Ebbs and flows of oil stocks plus different grades of crude)
    You an have all the new jobs as well as the existing ones. I thought "growth " was the big thing ?
    I don't think we're closing down O&G tomorrow are we? We'll have fossil fuels for quite some time. But the direction of travel has changed and that's key.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,874
    edited July 15

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    A friend of mine, not a Trumpite, said to me yesterday

    "My God, that photo, made me want to vote for him"

    Given that he lives in Truro, Cornwall this should not unduly influence the US elex - he hasn't got a vote; but I thought it was an interesting reaction. And it supports your thesis

    How odd. None of my friends have said anything like that. However Pulpstar is not wrong. The assassination attempt does help Donald Trump. It helps in several ways:

    The 'heroic' image as discussed. Personally I think he looks a bit of a bellend there but there will be those who are stirred by it. It adds something to his brand which was previously missing. Physical courage. Up to now he's tended to come across as what he is - flabby, vain and cowardly. It's the vanity that has driven this response/photo but it can look like courage. To some it will.

    It throttles the DEM's main line of attack - the warning that he's a threat to democracy and the constitution. This charge, although entirely justified, can now be painted as a demonisation exercise that has led to him almost being murdered. It provides the GOP with their own iconic date (13th July) to play against the DEM's Jan 6th. There's no equivalence, Jan 6th was instigated by Trump and perpetrated by his followers, whereas July 13th was a lone nutcase and zero to do with Biden, but this will only matter to people who can think properly. Plenty can't.

    Finally, icing on the cake, it likely cements Joe Biden in place as the DEM candidate, gifting Trump with an opponent too frail to campaign effectively and clearly too frail to serve a second term.

    So, all told, the catastrophic prospect of Trump2 has been rendered more likely by this dreadful event. Thank you, Thomas Matthew Crooks, thanks a bunch.
    Trump is having an astonishingly good few days.

    A judge threw out another case earlier to add to his momentum.

    He looks unstoppable now frankly, but my view is that he won anyway on the evening Biden did debate and showed everyone he was too old to govern any longer.
    New Ashcroft US poll has shown the debate made sod all difference.

    The numbers for July are now Biden 44% Trump 42% and Kennedy 10% and Stein 1% and West 1% post debate.

    The numbers for June taken before the debate were Biden 42% Trump 41%, Kennedy 10%, Stein 1% and West 1%.

    So if anything Biden has actually increased his lead by 1% net. Nobody is going to change their mind on what 1 Florida judge thought on Trump's confidential docs case which the prosecution will appeal anyway.

    I doubt any Independents will change their mind over Trump's getting a grazed ear from the poor shooting of an incel before he was eliminated by the Secret Service either.

    I expect Trump to take the lead after his convention and VP pick though as is normal but Biden will then claw that back after his convention in turn


    https://conservativehome.com/2024/07/15/lord-ashcroft-my-latest-poll-finds-expectations-of-a-trump-victory-strengthening-amongst-us-voters/#:~:text=Across the three surveys, we,age group up to 44.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,392

    kinabalu said:

    It throttles the DEM's main line of attack - the warning that he's a threat to democracy and the constitution. This charge, although entirely justified, can now be painted as a demonisation exercise that has led to him almost being murdered.

    The problem is trying to have it both ways, as you are doing here.

    If he's an American Hitler then why is assassination a step too far? They can't distance themselves from their own rhetoric without revealing that they don't really believe it and never have done.
    Two things I can think of.

    One is that, at the moment, there is still the oppotunity to stop Trump by democratic means, and that is definitely better.

    The other is that labelling Trump as an American Hitler is to miss the point. I doubt that Trump has much of a plan beyond saying "I'm the WINNER" for the next four years. Big chair in the big office. What should worry anyone concerned with democracy is the Project 2025 types who are using him as a figurehead. Last time they stuffed the Supreme Court, and I don't think anyone is denying the P2025 ambitions for another Trump term.

    Which makes DJT not so much an American Hitler as an American Quisling.
    The Dems can beat Trump by conventional means, theyve won the largest vote on last 2 elections .

    Bizarrely then instead have decided to argue with an idiot who has dragged them don to his level and is now beating them on experience..

  • booksellerbookseller Posts: 507

    MattW said:

    Nigelb said:

    MattW said:

    In a sense it IS staged, or at least opportunistic. Trump was at no risk when the photo was taken.

    Here's the continuous video for the 2 minutes from the first shot to the ambulance departure,

    00:53 "SHOOTER'S DOWN." Multiple times repeated.
    1:25 Trump steps out of his security guard shelter and does his raised fist gesture.

    https://youtu.be/LAk6dXEzIUo?t=50

    Sec.Serv. doctrine is to get the principal away from the scene asap, as there's always the possibility of a second shooter.
    "No risk" is an after the fact judgment.
    They didn't get the principal away asap. The principal stopped them for 10 seconds so he could stick his head above the security cordon, and have his photo taken.

    You can even hear Trump saying "Wait! Wait!" at 1:23 here:
    https://youtu.be/LAk6dXEzIUo?t=81

    "Shooter down" repeatd multiple times is pretty conclusive.
    Somewhat reminiscent of Theordore Roosevelt in 1912, when the ex-President was shot by a would-be assassin, and refused medical treatment in favor of giving his speech.

    TR did it because he thought it his BIG opportunity to win re-election.

    DJT's motivation, which led to The Picture, may have been similar, and also instinctive (ditto Teddy).
    I did not know about the Theodore Roosevelt assassination attempt. Fascinating rabbit hole I've just gone down. He was a lucky chap in terms of what slowed the bullet!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,575

    kinabalu said:

    It throttles the DEM's main line of attack - the warning that he's a threat to democracy and the constitution. This charge, although entirely justified, can now be painted as a demonisation exercise that has led to him almost being murdered.

    The problem is trying to have it both ways, as you are doing here.

    If he's an American Hitler then why is assassination a step too far? They can't distance themselves from their own rhetoric without revealing that they don't really believe it and never have done.
    Two things I can think of.

    One is that, at the moment, there is still the oppotunity to stop Trump by democratic means, and that is definitely better.

    The other is that labelling Trump as an American Hitler is to miss the point. I doubt that Trump has much of a plan beyond saying "I'm the WINNER" for the next four years. Big chair in the big office. What should worry anyone concerned with democracy is the Project 2025 types who are using him as a figurehead. Last time they stuffed the Supreme Court, and I don't think anyone is denying the P2025 ambitions for another Trump term.

    Which makes DJT not so much an American Hitler as an American Quisling.
    Have you read the Project 2025 document?

    https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,392

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Put in into administration first.
    Whatever government decides, paying the owners a large dividend is going to make funding any solution more difficult, not easier.
    Possibly, but having experience of how administrators work you can guarantee nothing. I rather suspect, despite her cries over the years, Reeves doesnt actually have an industrial strategy.
    I'm agnostic on that.
    And I don't think a forced decision on this shipyard is particularly dispositive on the issue,

    You're right about the risks of administration, but there are no perfect, or even good solutions here. There's considerable risk involved if it were to be bailed out.

    eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
    Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.

    These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.

    Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.

    So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
    I dont see why any of them have to be shut down early. Its a mad decision. I will probably have to close a factory next year if this goes ahead. A small sub contractor 80% dependent on the North Sea. You cant keep the place open on the 20% thats left. So 12 decent and hardworking people get shot because idiots like Miliband want to grandstand.

    Climate change is real and a serious problem. We need to transition the economy away from fossil fuels. We can't just ignore that reality because there will be individual job losses.

    Thatcher knew that we had to close the coal mines, which also saw decent and hardworking people out of work, more than 200,000 of them. We can do better than Thatcher by supporting the transition better.
    This does nothing to 'transition the economy away' from fossil fuels, it simply means those fossil fuels are imported, at great monetary and environmental cost.

    No person who believed sincerely in minimising carbon emissions, as opposed to being on a sociopathic mission to destroy Britain's economy, would welcome this sort of move.
    Well, I didn't have 'sociopathic mission to destroy the economy' on the first 100 days bingo card...

    Ignoring the hysterical hyperbole, those 12 jobs to be set against the literally thousands of new jobs, investment returns and export potential of leading on renewables and transitioning away from fossil fuels.

    (All the Rosebank oil will be exported incidentally. Ebbs and flows of oil stocks plus different grades of crude)
    You an have all the new jobs as well as the existing ones. I thought "growth " was the big thing ?
    I don't think we're closing down O&G tomorrow are we? We'll have fossil fuels for quite some time. But the direction of travel has changed and that's key.
    If reports on Miliband are correct we are. The NS will close down eventually anyway, there is no value to the UK in accelerating the end date.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,397
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Maybe. Though Trump surviving an assassination attempt from a 20 year old incel who was so bad a shot he failed to make his high school rifle team with just a bloodied ear is not quite the same as the many US soldiers who were killed by the ruthless Japanese military before the flag raising on Iwo Jima

    Slightly missing the point there, @HYUFD

    ON topic, what surprises me is how willing liberal media are to use this image. The NYT has it plastered everywhere, page 1. 2, 3 and on. Endless

    They must know it is very powerful and already iconic and is great for Trump. Nonetheless they use it constantly, so that suggests it is SUCH a good photo the political disbenefits are outweighed by its catnip quality for readers

    It's one of the very great American photographs. Everything about it is perfect. You just have to use it.

    It is, isn't it? Flag. Blue sky. Man with raised fist. Blood. Man in black suit and sunglasses. Two other people.
    Brilliant.
    "The wig. The glasses. The catchphrase. Brilliant."

    https://www.facebook.com/share/v/jGKWHzuoZdoQTXPT/
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,409
    Andy_JS said:

    Cookie said:

    geoffw said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Tidal power - works on 4 generating cycles a day - on incoming and outgoing tide twice a day. You only need an offset in tides between two locations of 3-4 hours to balance power generation. Cardiff and Colwyn Bay have been proposed for this reason.

    It was mentioned in the Labour manifesto, but not prominently. Pity MarqueeMark isn't here no to proselytise

    Swansea bay could have been up and running by now.

    Yes it was very expensive but most of that was the civil engineering works which would have lasted a century or more (far more if maintained well).
    My worry about tidal is wildlife: estuaries tend to be pretty valuable habitats. How do you not destroy that? How, for example, do you allow fish access/egress through a big dam you've put across the mouth of the estuary? Presumably it can be done?
    That's why the Swansea Bay idea hasn't happened.
    That's not why it hasn't happened.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Nigelb said:

    MattW said:

    In a sense it IS staged, or at least opportunistic. Trump was at no risk when the photo was taken.

    Here's the continuous video for the 2 minutes from the first shot to the ambulance departure,

    00:53 "SHOOTER'S DOWN." Multiple times repeated.
    1:25 Trump steps out of his security guard shelter and does his raised fist gesture.

    https://youtu.be/LAk6dXEzIUo?t=50

    Sec.Serv. doctrine is to get the principal away from the scene asap, as there's always the possibility of a second shooter.
    "No risk" is an after the fact judgment.
    They didn't get the principal away asap. The principal stopped them for 10 seconds so he could stick his head above the security cordon, and have his photo taken.

    You can even hear Trump saying "Wait! Wait!" at 1:23 here:
    https://youtu.be/LAk6dXEzIUo?t=81

    "Shooter down" repeatd multiple times is pretty conclusive.
    Somewhat reminiscent of Theordore Roosevelt in 1912, when the ex-President was shot by a would-be assassin, and refused medical treatment in favor of giving his speech.

    TR did it because he thought it his BIG opportunity to win re-election.

    DJT's motivation, which led to The Picture, may have been similar, and also instinctive (ditto Teddy).
    It's notable that with Reagan they had thrown him inside the car within 6-7 seconds of the first shot occurring.
    Back in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt was shot, there was ZERO protection by Secret Service of former Presidents OR Presidential candidates.

    In case of Ronald Reagan in 1981 the Secret Service was right there, as with Donald Trump this Saturday. Major difference was that RR was physically in no shape to do what DJT did.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,409

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Put in into administration first.
    Whatever government decides, paying the owners a large dividend is going to make funding any solution more difficult, not easier.
    Possibly, but having experience of how administrators work you can guarantee nothing. I rather suspect, despite her cries over the years, Reeves doesnt actually have an industrial strategy.
    I'm agnostic on that.
    And I don't think a forced decision on this shipyard is particularly dispositive on the issue,

    You're right about the risks of administration, but there are no perfect, or even good solutions here. There's considerable risk involved if it were to be bailed out.

    eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
    Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.

    These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.

    Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.

    So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
    I dont see why any of them have to be shut down early. Its a mad decision. I will probably have to close a factory next year if this goes ahead. A small sub contractor 80% dependent on the North Sea. You cant keep the place open on the 20% thats left. So 12 decent and hardworking people get shot because idiots like Miliband want to grandstand.

    Climate change is real and a serious problem. We need to transition the economy away from fossil fuels. We can't just ignore that reality because there will be individual job losses.

    Thatcher knew that we had to close the coal mines, which also saw decent and hardworking people out of work, more than 200,000 of them. We can do better than Thatcher by supporting the transition better.
    This does nothing to 'transition the economy away' from fossil fuels, it simply means those fossil fuels are imported, at great monetary and environmental cost.

    No person who believed sincerely in minimising carbon emissions, as opposed to being on a sociopathic mission to destroy Britain's economy, would welcome this sort of move.
    Well, I didn't have 'sociopathic mission to destroy the economy' on the first 100 days bingo card...

    Ignoring the hysterical hyperbole, those 12 jobs to be set against the literally thousands of new jobs, investment returns and export potential of leading on renewables and transitioning away from fossil fuels.

    (All the Rosebank oil will be exported incidentally. Ebbs and flows of oil stocks plus different grades of crude)
    You an have all the new jobs as well as the existing ones. I thought "growth " was the big thing ?
    I don't think we're closing down O&G tomorrow are we? We'll have fossil fuels for quite some time. But the direction of travel has changed and that's key.
    The two things have nothing to do with each other - actually, scrub that, the additional revenue generated by the new oil and gas would have meant *more* money for the exchequer to spend on daft eco-schemes not less, so this harms 'the transition'.
  • booksellerbookseller Posts: 507

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Put in into administration first.
    Whatever government decides, paying the owners a large dividend is going to make funding any solution more difficult, not easier.
    Possibly, but having experience of how administrators work you can guarantee nothing. I rather suspect, despite her cries over the years, Reeves doesnt actually have an industrial strategy.
    I'm agnostic on that.
    And I don't think a forced decision on this shipyard is particularly dispositive on the issue,

    You're right about the risks of administration, but there are no perfect, or even good solutions here. There's considerable risk involved if it were to be bailed out.

    eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.

    If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.

    So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..

    But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.

    Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.

    Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
    Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
    Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.

    These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.

    Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.

    So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
    I dont see why any of them have to be shut down early. Its a mad decision. I will probably have to close a factory next year if this goes ahead. A small sub contractor 80% dependent on the North Sea. You cant keep the place open on the 20% thats left. So 12 decent and hardworking people get shot because idiots like Miliband want to grandstand.

    Climate change is real and a serious problem. We need to transition the economy away from fossil fuels. We can't just ignore that reality because there will be individual job losses.

    Thatcher knew that we had to close the coal mines, which also saw decent and hardworking people out of work, more than 200,000 of them. We can do better than Thatcher by supporting the transition better.
    This does nothing to 'transition the economy away' from fossil fuels, it simply means those fossil fuels are imported, at great monetary and environmental cost.

    No person who believed sincerely in minimising carbon emissions, as opposed to being on a sociopathic mission to destroy Britain's economy, would welcome this sort of move.
    Well, I didn't have 'sociopathic mission to destroy the economy' on the first 100 days bingo card...

    Ignoring the hysterical hyperbole, those 12 jobs to be set against the literally thousands of new jobs, investment returns and export potential of leading on renewables and transitioning away from fossil fuels.

    (All the Rosebank oil will be exported incidentally. Ebbs and flows of oil stocks plus different grades of crude)
    You an have all the new jobs as well as the existing ones. I thought "growth " was the big thing ?
    I don't think we're closing down O&G tomorrow are we? We'll have fossil fuels for quite some time. But the direction of travel has changed and that's key.
    If reports on Miliband are correct we are. The NS will close down eventually anyway, there is no value to the UK in accelerating the end date.
    Sorry. What reports are those? Genuinely interested to know more about this. There is a stated end date?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,585
    One of Germany’s main rail corridors is to be closed for months as part of a major overhaul of the ailing train network of Europe’s largest economy that is expected to last until the end of the decade.

    Years of underinvestment and lack of political direction are being blamed for the state of the German railways, which have in recent years been beset by a massive increase in breakdowns, delays, cancellations and other major technical mishaps and led to unflattering comparisons with infrastructure in the developing world.

    Deutsche Bahn, the national railway company of Germany, a state-owned enterprise under the control of the German government, has also become the butt of international jokes at the Euro 2024 football championships.

    Over the four-week tournament, football fans from England to Georgia discovered often to their surprise just how unreliable the trains were. “If it wasn’t already clear, the [experience during the] Euros showed just what a problem Deutsche Bahn has with reliability and punctuality,” wrote Die Zeit on Monday.


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/15/germany-close-key-rail-corridor-overhaul-train-network-deutsche-bahn

    Yet we've been continually told that nationalised railways are so much better.
This discussion has been closed.