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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 !
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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?
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.
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
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)...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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 )
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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 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?
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.
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 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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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)
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.
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 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?"
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.
"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).
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.
"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.
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.
"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."
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 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 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 ?
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 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.
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
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..
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.
"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!
Believe that many PBers are misjudging the mood here in the USA at this juncture. Which is I think lot more somber and way less sensational.
We are, across the political spectrum and from sea to shining sea, in a state of shock after the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
Shock is NOT as profound as in 1963 (John F Kennedy) or 1968 (Martin Luther King, Jr and Robert F Kennedy, Sr) or even in 1981(Ronald Reagan). More like unsuccessful attempted assassinations in 1933 (Franklin D Roosevelt) and 1975 (Gerald Ford).
HOWEVER think the attack on DJT is more shocking because it's been a generation (at least) since the last attempt against a President, former President or Presidential candidate.
NOT surprising, perhaps. But that does not take away the shock - if anything makes it worse.
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 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 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.
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
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."
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?
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.
"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.
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 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'.
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 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?
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.
Comments
I have a photo of the actual assassination attemptt. Robert Peston has confirmed the provenance of the photograph.
"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
TSE quotes Robert Peston as a reliable source.
And Leon has an odd friend in Cornwall!
To what is this site coming?
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.
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.
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.
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
Forgemasters' solution - like the Tories .
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.
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!
Whatever government decides, paying the owners a large dividend is going to make funding any solution more difficult, not easier.
What's the timescale for building those two if they were to be given the go ahead this year ?
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/
https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/donald-trump-rally-shooting-latest-news-assassination-attempt-thomas-matthew-crooks-hnrb6xjvr
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.
"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
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
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
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.
"No risk" is an after the fact judgment.
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?
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.
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
What is the purpose of liberalism?
Why we oppose political violence
https://www.infinitescroll.us/p/what-is-the-purpose-of-liberalism
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.
(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
Swansea obvs isn't going to balance that, but other projects might.
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.
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.
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.
Brilliant.
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?
Secondly there is no transition plan that I can see. Perhaps you know different ?
Hope I've got the maths right there...
(1): https://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/swansea-bay-tidal-lagoon-what-11999320
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADgQZwuPyt4
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's pure vibes but they're clearly very positive for him.
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)
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
"We don't have a plan so let's not change anything?"
Wow.
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).
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 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.
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..
We are, across the political spectrum and from sea to shining sea, in a state of shock after the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
Shock is NOT as profound as in 1963 (John F Kennedy) or 1968 (Martin Luther King, Jr and Robert F Kennedy, Sr) or even in 1981(Ronald Reagan). More like unsuccessful attempted assassinations in 1933 (Franklin D Roosevelt) and 1975 (Gerald Ford).
HOWEVER think the attack on DJT is more shocking because it's been a generation (at least) since the last attempt against a President, former President or Presidential candidate.
NOT surprising, perhaps. But that does not take away the shock - if anything makes it worse.
https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/jGKWHzuoZdoQTXPT/
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.
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.