I just finished up an exclusive interview going over a new, major AI model upgrade. Can confirm, tomorrow (now today) will be a big day for developers.
The theoretical advantage - if it could be made to work reliably on a large scale - is much cheaper (another order of magnitude or so) cost to get mass into orbit.
- The payload is very, very limited. - And has to not mind 30,000g - And if you want to got to orbit, requires building a rocket motor into the projectile. - A rocket engine that doesn’t mind 30,000g
Then end result is system that can send very small quantities of something very, very tough (like water). By the time you are building high performance rocket engines into the projectiles, it’s not cheap anymore.
Useful for range testing of defences against very high speed missiles, possibly, though
The theoretical advantage - if it could be made to work reliably on a large scale - is much cheaper (another order of magnitude or so) cost to get mass into orbit.
- The payload is very, very limited. - And has to not mind 30,000g - And if you want to got to orbit, requires building a rocket motor into the projectile. - A rocket engine that doesn’t mind 30,000g
Then end result is system that can send very small quantities of something very, very tough (like water). By the time you are building high performance rocket engines into the projectiles, it’s not cheap anymore.
Useful for range testing of defences against very high speed missiles, possibly, though
See SpinLaunch…
Whilst true, Rocket-Assisted Projectiles (see Excalibur) already can withstand 10=15,000 G forces when launched form a conventional artillery piece. Yes, the scale is not the same, but it shows that rockets ad electronics can be made to withstand vast g-forces.
Oh god, the puritan Keith is at it again! Even @Anabobazina has got to be getting sick of this government?
Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 30m 🚨 NEW: The government is considering forcing pubs to close their doors early to target harmful drinking
This...
This...
This has to be a joke. Surely. Are they TRYING to be the most hated government in history, and in record time?
Do you think Starmers ever been drunk in his life?
I'd much rather have RAYNER as PM, as at least she knows how to have a good time and enjoy herself
"The government is considering forcing pubs to close their doors early to target harmful drinking"
Oh FFS. The harmful drinking is being done at home on the sofa at wine o'clock not at 11:30pm on the Dog and Duck.
Yes, better all round to crack down on off sales. Ban 19 crimes.
Non wine drinking friends brought us some 19Crimes. It was so awful we didn’t even put it in the gravy. Cleared the drains, though.
I'm quite partial to 19 Crimes. I've only done up to junior level with the Court of Master Sommeliers though so I bow to your superior appreciation.
Leon, who has probably sunk more wine than most of us, has spoken not disapprovingly of it.
Yes, 19 Crimes is fine, and perfectly palatable. Esp the "Red Blend"
People who snark at it don't remember how bad "mediocre wine" USED to be (and fair enough, they may be younglings) Anyone over 45 can remember red or white so bad it made your tongue curl and your brain assume (correctly): instant hangover
Wine is a bit like airplanes. Fifty years ago planes regularly crashed, now these crashes are so rare they are noticeable and make headline news (even small ones). Ditto wine. Fifty years ago wines were often so bad it was hard to keep them down after a couple of glasses, now that is exceptionally unusual
19 Crimes would have passed for "rather good wine" back in 1984
That’s very true. We live an hour’s drive from the big offie, so it’s a trip every month or two for a car full. We pick up all sorts of weird and wonderful bin end bottles to try once, and it’s a rare one that gets sent straight to the kitchen. The big AU/SA/US brands of table wine are all pretty good unless you’re hosting guests, and that’s as much to do with the perceived quality of the brand than the actual quality of the wine.
Plane crashes used to be every few weeks, and quickly forgotten about if they were mechanical in nature.
Does the left hand not know what the right hand is doing?
This is the full quote from Gwynne. “These are discussions that we have got to have – even if it’s just about tightening up on some of the hours of operation; particularly where there are concerns that people are drinking too much.”
Infer as you will. To me it looks like a sanction for problem venues. But, as I say, let’s see.
Urquhart, back in the mists of time a thoughtful and thought provoking poster has become one of the flag bearers of edited quotations and wilful misinterpretations. SAD.
The theoretical advantage - if it could be made to work reliably on a large scale - is much cheaper (another order of magnitude or so) cost to get mass into orbit.
- The payload is very, very limited. - And has to not mind 30,000g - And if you want to got to orbit, requires building a rocket motor into the projectile. - A rocket engine that doesn’t mind 30,000g
Then end result is system that can send very small quantities of something very, very tough (like water). By the time you are building high performance rocket engines into the projectiles, it’s not cheap anymore.
Useful for range testing of defences against very high speed missiles, possibly, though
See SpinLaunch…
How did we get from “gradually accelerate a projectile” to “needs to withstand 30,000g”?
Given that manned missions stick to 3-4g for normal operations*, that’s what I would call a gradual acceleration.
Keir Starmer will cast off the gloom that has dominated his early days in power and pledge to “build a new Britain” as the Treasury examines tweaking the fiscal rules to allow more capital spending.
Sources said the government could use next month’s budget to change the way its five-year debt rule is assessed, which could allow more spending on housing, roads and hospitals.
Have they been reading PB? Very mixed messages, canning a lot of planned infrastructure building in the first few weeks and only a couple of days ago, briefing, sorry no money can't even do the 40 hospital extensions the Tories identified.
A beloved Cincinnati bakery, whose “cookie poll” has accurately predicted every election outcome but one since 1984, currently has the former president and Republican nominee leading Democrat Kamala Harris in its unscientific survey. Trump notched about 54% support (2,953 cookies) to Harris’ 39% (2,134 cookies), with an “independent” smiley-face cookie scoring 7% (397 cookies), per the latest tally shared with The Post by Busken Bakery.
A beloved Cincinnati bakery, whose “cookie poll” has accurately predicted every election outcome but one since 1984, currently has the former president and Republican nominee leading Democrat Kamala Harris in its unscientific survey. Trump notched about 54% support (2,953 cookies) to Harris’ 39% (2,134 cookies), with an “independent” smiley-face cookie scoring 7% (397 cookies), per the latest tally shared with The Post by Busken Bakery.
A beloved Cincinnati bakery, whose “cookie poll” has accurately predicted every election outcome but one since 1984, currently has the former president and Republican nominee leading Democrat Kamala Harris in its unscientific survey. Trump notched about 54% support (2,953 cookies) to Harris’ 39% (2,134 cookies), with an “independent” smiley-face cookie scoring 7% (397 cookies), per the latest tally shared with The Post by Busken Bakery.
"Tory leadership contender Kemi Badenoch has defended MPs taking freebie tickets to events, saying it allows them to spend time with their families.
The Conservatives have accused Labour of being "a government of self-service" and "living the high life" since details emerged of donations to senior figures in the party - including tickets for Sir Keir Starmer to watch football matches and see Taylor Swift in concert.
But while Ms Badenoch accused the new government of "hypocrisy" for taking donations, she also stood by her own register of interests that shows she had taken tickets and hospitality for a rugby game, the Jingle Bell Ball concert, and Ed Sheeran."
That highlights the fundamental problem with this kind of gift
In the private sector corporate hospitality is an investment. It is expected to generate a return - nothing as crude as a bribe for business (that would be illegal) but in building a relationship so that you get a call to pitch or some additional insight. That’s why they are carefully monitored and controlled. It’s not just disclosure - but it’s disclosure *and pre-approval* by someone with the power to say “no”.
An MP should not be participating in this network of implicit obligations.
"Tory leadership contender Kemi Badenoch has defended MPs taking freebie tickets to events, saying it allows them to spend time with their families.
The Conservatives have accused Labour of being "a government of self-service" and "living the high life" since details emerged of donations to senior figures in the party - including tickets for Sir Keir Starmer to watch football matches and see Taylor Swift in concert.
But while Ms Badenoch accused the new government of "hypocrisy" for taking donations, she also stood by her own register of interests that shows she had taken tickets and hospitality for a rugby game, the Jingle Bell Ball concert, and Ed Sheeran."
That highlights the fundamental problem with this kind of gift
In the private sector corporate hospitality is an investment. It is expected to generate a return - nothing as crude as a bribe for business (that would be illegal) but in building a relationship so that you get a call to pitch or some additional insight. That’s why they are carefully monitored and controlled. It’s not just disclosure - but it’s disclosure *and pre-approval* by someone with the power to say “no”.
An MP should not be participating in this network of implicit obligations.
Fair play to Kemi for not being a total hypocrite herself and joining the pile-on against Labour MPs, but she’s clearly just as bad.
Unless you’re a minister invited to present a trophy or award in an official capacity, then buy your own tickets to events MPs, it’s not as if you can’t afford it yourselves and it looks really bad at the same time as you’re raising taxes and cutting benefits for ordinary people.
"Tory leadership contender Kemi Badenoch has defended MPs taking freebie tickets to events, saying it allows them to spend time with their families.
The Conservatives have accused Labour of being "a government of self-service" and "living the high life" since details emerged of donations to senior figures in the party - including tickets for Sir Keir Starmer to watch football matches and see Taylor Swift in concert.
But while Ms Badenoch accused the new government of "hypocrisy" for taking donations, she also stood by her own register of interests that shows she had taken tickets and hospitality for a rugby game, the Jingle Bell Ball concert, and Ed Sheeran."
That highlights the fundamental problem with this kind of gift
In the private sector corporate hospitality is an investment. It is expected to generate a return - nothing as crude as a bribe for business (that would be illegal) but in building a relationship so that you get a call to pitch or some additional insight. That’s why they are carefully monitored and controlled. It’s not just disclosure - but it’s disclosure *and pre-approval* by someone with the power to say “no”.
An MP should not be participating in this network of implicit obligations.
Fair play to Kemi for not being a total hypocrite herself and joining the pile-on against Labour MPs, but she’s clearly just as bad.
Unless you’re a minister invited to present a trophy or award in an official capacity, then buy your own tickets to events MPs, it’s not as if you can’t afford it yourselves and it looks really bad at the same time as you’re raising taxes and cutting benefits for ordinary people.
As I stated previously, I suspect this is probably a common "norm" attitude amongst MPs. Not talking about having your glasses, suits, your wife's clobber, and very expensive birthday party paid for, but freebie tickets and use of other people's holiday homes, and they don't think anything much more of it (same as things many MPs claimed for expenses, it just became something you did, because everybody else did it). And some rule bending where they take their family and minimise what they think it was worth is also part of it.
There are definitely been MPs in the recent past who were on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and seemed to go to every big race meet going as guest of a gambling company.
"Tory leadership contender Kemi Badenoch has defended MPs taking freebie tickets to events, saying it allows them to spend time with their families.
The Conservatives have accused Labour of being "a government of self-service" and "living the high life" since details emerged of donations to senior figures in the party - including tickets for Sir Keir Starmer to watch football matches and see Taylor Swift in concert.
But while Ms Badenoch accused the new government of "hypocrisy" for taking donations, she also stood by her own register of interests that shows she had taken tickets and hospitality for a rugby game, the Jingle Bell Ball concert, and Ed Sheeran."
That highlights the fundamental problem with this kind of gift
In the private sector corporate hospitality is an investment. It is expected to generate a return - nothing as crude as a bribe for business (that would be illegal) but in building a relationship so that you get a call to pitch or some additional insight. That’s why they are carefully monitored and controlled. It’s not just disclosure - but it’s disclosure *and pre-approval* by someone with the power to say “no”.
An MP should not be participating in this network of implicit obligations.
Fair play to Kemi for not being a total hypocrite herself and joining the pile-on against Labour MPs, but she’s clearly just as bad.
Unless you’re a minister invited to present a trophy or award in an official capacity, then buy your own tickets to events MPs, it’s not as if you can’t afford it yourselves and it looks really bad at the same time as you’re raising taxes and cutting benefits for ordinary people.
As I stated previously, I suspect this is probably a common "norm" attitude amongst MPs. Not talking about having your glasses, suits, very expensive birthday party paid for, but freebie tickets and use of other people's holiday homes, and they don't think anything much more of it (same as things many MPs claimed for expenses, it just became something you did, because everybody else did it). And some rule bending where they take their family and minimise what they think it was worth is also part of it.
Yes, they clearly see it as a ‘perk’ of the job.
It would be interesting to see how these sports and concerts tickets are initiated, I’ll guess it’s more often the MPs people making the call to the event organisers, than the other way around.
Interestingly, I see little problem with some of the declarations we saw from MPs accepting hospitality from their local lower-league football club. I think MPs should attend matches in their constituency and speak to those working there on a regular basis, and very different from the £10k box at Arsenal or tickets for concerts at Wembley.
"Tory leadership contender Kemi Badenoch has defended MPs taking freebie tickets to events, saying it allows them to spend time with their families.
The Conservatives have accused Labour of being "a government of self-service" and "living the high life" since details emerged of donations to senior figures in the party - including tickets for Sir Keir Starmer to watch football matches and see Taylor Swift in concert.
But while Ms Badenoch accused the new government of "hypocrisy" for taking donations, she also stood by her own register of interests that shows she had taken tickets and hospitality for a rugby game, the Jingle Bell Ball concert, and Ed Sheeran."
That highlights the fundamental problem with this kind of gift
In the private sector corporate hospitality is an investment. It is expected to generate a return - nothing as crude as a bribe for business (that would be illegal) but in building a relationship so that you get a call to pitch or some additional insight. That’s why they are carefully monitored and controlled. It’s not just disclosure - but it’s disclosure *and pre-approval* by someone with the power to say “no”.
An MP should not be participating in this network of implicit obligations.
Fair play to Kemi for not being a total hypocrite herself and joining the pile-on against Labour MPs, but she’s clearly just as bad.
Unless you’re a minister invited to present a trophy or award in an official capacity, then buy your own tickets to events MPs, it’s not as if you can’t afford it yourselves and it looks really bad at the same time as you’re raising taxes and cutting benefits for ordinary people.
As I stated previously, I suspect this is probably a common "norm" attitude amongst MPs. Not talking about having your glasses, suits, very expensive birthday party paid for, but freebie tickets and use of other people's holiday homes, and they don't think anything much more of it (same as things many MPs claimed for expenses, it just became something you did, because everybody else did it). And some rule bending where they take their family and minimise what they think it was worth is also part of it.
Yes, they clearly see it as a ‘perk’ of the job.
It would be interesting to see how these sports and concerts tickets are initiated, I’ll guess it’s more often the MPs people making the call to the event organisers, than the other way around.
Interestingly, I see little problem with some of the declarations we saw from MPs accepting hospitality from their local lower-league football club. I think MPs should attend matches in their constituency and speak to those working there on a regular basis, and very different from the £10k box at Arsenal or tickets for concerts at Wembley.
This is where it gets hard to write rules. Definitely no issue with PM / Sports minister getting a freebie ticket to a big England match e.g. Euro finals. A few unconnected freebies here and there, meh, particularly if it clearly is community stuff. The same individual / organisation time and time again for £10ks, and you are hoovering the freebies up like some Love Island celeb, well, that gets smelly. In my mind, its a bit like people's dodgy tweets, was it a one off ages ago or is this a consistent regular pattern of behaviour.
The theoretical advantage - if it could be made to work reliably on a large scale - is much cheaper (another order of magnitude or so) cost to get mass into orbit.
- The payload is very, very limited. - And has to not mind 30,000g - And if you want to got to orbit, requires building a rocket motor into the projectile. - A rocket engine that doesn’t mind 30,000g
Then end result is system that can send very small quantities of something very, very tough (like water). By the time you are building high performance rocket engines into the projectiles, it’s not cheap anymore.
Useful for range testing of defences against very high speed missiles, possibly, though
See SpinLaunch…
How did we get from “gradually accelerate a projectile” to “needs to withstand 30,000g”?
Given that manned missions stick to 3-4g for normal operations*, that’s what I would call a gradual acceleration.
G-forces are weird; human survivability depends not just on the force, but the duration. Kenny Brack survived an Indycar crash that registered over 200 G. F1 crashes occasionally get over 50 peak G. Blundell had a mahoosive crash in Indycar in the mid-1990s that was (from memory) over 150.
Maybe the answer to these freebies is people can only donate them centrally, they can say for which party, they are recorded and MPs can take up what is on offer in the pot. That way even if people do this for "access", no guarantee you don't get somebody who is no use to you and also if the same MP keeps sharp elbowing for every race meet to be in the box with Ladbrokes, its going to be a bit dodgy looking.
Also, should cut out all the nonsense of gifting a birthday party, knickers for your mistress and dirty weekends away.
The theoretical advantage - if it could be made to work reliably on a large scale - is much cheaper (another order of magnitude or so) cost to get mass into orbit.
- The payload is very, very limited. - And has to not mind 30,000g - And if you want to got to orbit, requires building a rocket motor into the projectile. - A rocket engine that doesn’t mind 30,000g
Then end result is system that can send very small quantities of something very, very tough (like water). By the time you are building high performance rocket engines into the projectiles, it’s not cheap anymore.
Useful for range testing of defences against very high speed missiles, possibly, though
See SpinLaunch…
How did we get from “gradually accelerate a projectile” to “needs to withstand 30,000g”?
Given that manned missions stick to 3-4g for normal operations*, that’s what I would call a gradual acceleration.
G-forces are weird; human survivability depends not just on the force, but the duration. Kenny Brack survived an Indycar crash that registered over 200 G. F1 crashes occasionally get over 50 peak G. Blundell had a mahoosive crash in Indycar in the mid-1990s that was (from memory) over 150.
Yes agreed, forces in car crashes can be high but momentary, whereas forces in fighter jets and space flight are lower but sustained.
Kenny Brack was incredibly lucky though, that was a properly horrific crash. Roland Ratzenburger and Dale Earnhardt not so lucky, the weakest part of the body is the neck and thankfully motorsport safety equipment is better these days.
The theoretical advantage - if it could be made to work reliably on a large scale - is much cheaper (another order of magnitude or so) cost to get mass into orbit.
- The payload is very, very limited. - And has to not mind 30,000g - And if you want to got to orbit, requires building a rocket motor into the projectile. - A rocket engine that doesn’t mind 30,000g
Then end result is system that can send very small quantities of something very, very tough (like water). By the time you are building high performance rocket engines into the projectiles, it’s not cheap anymore.
Useful for range testing of defences against very high speed missiles, possibly, though
See SpinLaunch…
How did we get from “gradually accelerate a projectile” to “needs to withstand 30,000g”?
Given that manned missions stick to 3-4g for normal operations*, that’s what I would call a gradual acceleration.
G-forces are weird; human survivability depends not just on the force, but the duration. Kenny Brack survived an Indycar crash that registered over 200 G. F1 crashes occasionally get over 50 peak G. Blundell had a mahoosive crash in Indycar in the mid-1990s that was (from memory) over 150.
Yes agreed, forces in car crashes can be high but momentary, whereas forces in fighter jets and space flight are lower but sustained.
Kenny Brack was incredibly lucky though, that was a properly horrific crash. Roland Ratzenburger and Dale Earnhardt not so lucky, the weakest part of the body is the neck and thankfully motorsport safety equipment is better these days.
Dale Earnhardt was one of the main drivers against the HANS device (for others, the HANS device restricts movement of a driver's head and neck in a crash). He refused to use one. He died of a basilar skull fracture, which a HANS device may well have prevented.
F1: from memory, the biggest crash I can recall was Raikkonen spinning and ploughing into a barrier at over 50G. He was completely fine.
The most dramatic crash, though, was Grosjean's fireball at Bahrain which ripped his car in two.
Kubica’s crash in Canada was pretty bad to watch live, but that’s actually what you want to see from an accident, whereby the car decelerates slowly over several hundred metres rather than coming to a hard stop quickly.
Grosjean’s crash I was totally convinced I’d just watched someone die, and it was a very long couple of minutes to wait with the TV director having cut away from the scene. For anyone who’s interested, what’s left of his car is currently on display at the F1 Exhibition in London until the end of the year. https://f1exhibition.com/london/
The theoretical advantage - if it could be made to work reliably on a large scale - is much cheaper (another order of magnitude or so) cost to get mass into orbit.
- The payload is very, very limited. - And has to not mind 30,000g - And if you want to got to orbit, requires building a rocket motor into the projectile. - A rocket engine that doesn’t mind 30,000g
Then end result is system that can send very small quantities of something very, very tough (like water). By the time you are building high performance rocket engines into the projectiles, it’s not cheap anymore.
Useful for range testing of defences against very high speed missiles, possibly, though
See SpinLaunch…
How did we get from “gradually accelerate a projectile” to “needs to withstand 30,000g”?
Given that manned missions stick to 3-4g for normal operations*, that’s what I would call a gradual acceleration.
G-forces are weird; human survivability depends not just on the force, but the duration. Kenny Brack survived an Indycar crash that registered over 200 G. F1 crashes occasionally get over 50 peak G. Blundell had a mahoosive crash in Indycar in the mid-1990s that was (from memory) over 150.
Yes agreed, forces in car crashes can be high but momentary, whereas forces in fighter jets and space flight are lower but sustained.
Kenny Brack was incredibly lucky though, that was a properly horrific crash. Roland Ratzenburger and Dale Earnhardt not so lucky, the weakest part of the body is the neck and thankfully motorsport safety equipment is better these days.
Dale Earnhardt was one of the main drivers against the HANS device (for others, the HANS device restricts movement of a driver's head and neck in a crash). He refused to use one. He died of a basilar skull fracture, which a HANS device may well have prevented.
All drivers now use HANS devices...
Yes he was one of those campaigning against the HANS being made compulsory in NASCAR at the time, and somewhat ironically it could well have saved his life.
His argument was that it restricted movement of the head too much in the car, but as with the introduction of safety harnesses that’s what you actually want in a severe crash. If you have tightened your belts yourself in most race cars, they’re nowhere near tight enough in an accident.
Oh god, the puritan Keith is at it again! Even @Anabobazina has got to be getting sick of this government?
Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 30m 🚨 NEW: The government is considering forcing pubs to close their doors early to target harmful drinking
I think I can tolerate the puritanism, it's the ineptness that will be harder to bear.
If you want to tackle problems with alcohol then the place to start is with supermarket sales of cheap vodka. That's where you will find the hardcore of problem drinkers.
As I've argued many times before, if you were to halve alcohol duty for on license sales and double it for off license sales (and forbid sales below the alcohol duty rate) then you'd encourage drinking in communal licensed premises which is better then having people drink on their own at home.
"Tory leadership contender Kemi Badenoch has defended MPs taking freebie tickets to events, saying it allows them to spend time with their families.
The Conservatives have accused Labour of being "a government of self-service" and "living the high life" since details emerged of donations to senior figures in the party - including tickets for Sir Keir Starmer to watch football matches and see Taylor Swift in concert.
But while Ms Badenoch accused the new government of "hypocrisy" for taking donations, she also stood by her own register of interests that shows she had taken tickets and hospitality for a rugby game, the Jingle Bell Ball concert, and Ed Sheeran."
That highlights the fundamental problem with this kind of gift
In the private sector corporate hospitality is an investment. It is expected to generate a return - nothing as crude as a bribe for business (that would be illegal) but in building a relationship so that you get a call to pitch or some additional insight. That’s why they are carefully monitored and controlled. It’s not just disclosure - but it’s disclosure *and pre-approval* by someone with the power to say “no”.
An MP should not be participating in this network of implicit obligations.
Fair play to Kemi for not being a total hypocrite herself and joining the pile-on against Labour MPs, but she’s clearly just as bad.
Unless you’re a minister invited to present a trophy or award in an official capacity, then buy your own tickets to events MPs, it’s not as if you can’t afford it yourselves and it looks really bad at the same time as you’re raising taxes and cutting benefits for ordinary people.
As I stated previously, I suspect this is probably a common "norm" attitude amongst MPs. Not talking about having your glasses, suits, very expensive birthday party paid for, but freebie tickets and use of other people's holiday homes, and they don't think anything much more of it (same as things many MPs claimed for expenses, it just became something you did, because everybody else did it). And some rule bending where they take their family and minimise what they think it was worth is also part of it.
Yes, they clearly see it as a ‘perk’ of the job.
It would be interesting to see how these sports and concerts tickets are initiated, I’ll guess it’s more often the MPs people making the call to the event organisers, than the other way around.
Interestingly, I see little problem with some of the declarations we saw from MPs accepting hospitality from their local lower-league football club. I think MPs should attend matches in their constituency and speak to those working there on a regular basis, and very different from the £10k box at Arsenal or tickets for concerts at Wembley.
This is where it gets hard to write rules. Definitely no issue with PM / Sports minister getting a freebie ticket to a big England match e.g. Euro finals. A few unconnected freebies here and there, meh, particularly if it clearly is community stuff. The same individual / organisation time and time again for £10ks, and you are hoovering the freebies up like some Love Island celeb, well, that gets smelly. In my mind, its a bit like people's dodgy tweets, was it a one off ages ago or is this a consistent regular pattern of behaviour.
Yes it’s one of those where you know it if you see it, but difficult to write out where to draw the line.
Yes I expect to see a DCMS minister at Wembley or Silverstone, it’s part of the job. However, I also want to see them at the European ten-pin bowling championship in Gateshead handing out a trophy, or the British National Gliding Championship on a cold weekend in a field in Gloucestershire.
Concerts there’s almost no excuse, but awards ceremonies like the BAFTAS or Brit Awards you would expect to see a minister there.
Hospitality from events sponsors etc is just lobbying, should be a definite no-no.
Anyway, work to do, which involves being outside in a hot country and doesn’t involve watching live sport.
Oh god, the puritan Keith is at it again! Even @Anabobazina has got to be getting sick of this government?
Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 30m 🚨 NEW: The government is considering forcing pubs to close their doors early to target harmful drinking
I think I can tolerate the puritanism, it's the ineptness that will be harder to bear.
If you want to tackle problems with alcohol then the place to start is with supermarket sales of cheap vodka. That's where you will find the hardcore of problem drinkers.
As I've argued many times before, if you were to halve alcohol duty for on license sales and double it for off license sales (and forbid sales below the alcohol duty rate) then you'd encourage drinking in communal licensed premises which is better then having people drink on their own at home.
Pub landlords will kick out people who have gone way too far on alcohol intake. Its safer than drinking at home.
I listened to the whole thing. I was driving on my scooter with earphones and I thought she was excellent. Almost brought a lump to my throat. So well constructed. If she isn't next Labour leader it'll be because she's no longer around
Ah the good old Rogerdamus kiss of death
If Rayner became PM the immigration problem would be solved. Emigration would exceed immigration. FWIW we have the Govt "we" elected. The Tories had been in power too long and were terrible. Labour will be worse and it will not take as long as it did with the Tories.
"Tory leadership contender Kemi Badenoch has defended MPs taking freebie tickets to events, saying it allows them to spend time with their families.
The Conservatives have accused Labour of being "a government of self-service" and "living the high life" since details emerged of donations to senior figures in the party - including tickets for Sir Keir Starmer to watch football matches and see Taylor Swift in concert.
But while Ms Badenoch accused the new government of "hypocrisy" for taking donations, she also stood by her own register of interests that shows she had taken tickets and hospitality for a rugby game, the Jingle Bell Ball concert, and Ed Sheeran."
That highlights the fundamental problem with this kind of gift
In the private sector corporate hospitality is an investment. It is expected to generate a return - nothing as crude as a bribe for business (that would be illegal) but in building a relationship so that you get a call to pitch or some additional insight. That’s why they are carefully monitored and controlled. It’s not just disclosure - but it’s disclosure *and pre-approval* by someone with the power to say “no”.
An MP should not be participating in this network of implicit obligations.
But politicians’ campaigns ultimately have to be paid for by donations, so would-be MPs and political parties are accepting much bigger contributions. It seems odd to worry about some Ed Sheeran tickets when Badenoch took a £40k donation from Charles Keymer.
So what’s your solution? Ban corporate hospitality, but leave these multi-thousand contributions? Ban the multi-thousand contributions, but then who pays for campaigning?
"Tory leadership contender Kemi Badenoch has defended MPs taking freebie tickets to events, saying it allows them to spend time with their families.
The Conservatives have accused Labour of being "a government of self-service" and "living the high life" since details emerged of donations to senior figures in the party - including tickets for Sir Keir Starmer to watch football matches and see Taylor Swift in concert.
But while Ms Badenoch accused the new government of "hypocrisy" for taking donations, she also stood by her own register of interests that shows she had taken tickets and hospitality for a rugby game, the Jingle Bell Ball concert, and Ed Sheeran."
That highlights the fundamental problem with this kind of gift
In the private sector corporate hospitality is an investment. It is expected to generate a return - nothing as crude as a bribe for business (that would be illegal) but in building a relationship so that you get a call to pitch or some additional insight. That’s why they are carefully monitored and controlled. It’s not just disclosure - but it’s disclosure *and pre-approval* by someone with the power to say “no”.
An MP should not be participating in this network of implicit obligations.
But politicians’ campaigns ultimately have to be paid for by donations, so would-be MPs and political parties are accepting much bigger contributions. It seems odd to worry about some Ed Sheeran tickets when Badenoch took a £40k donation from Charles Keymer.
So what’s your solution? Ban corporate hospitality, but leave these multi-thousand contributions? Ban the multi-thousand contributions, but then who pays for campaigning?
"It seems odd to worry about some Ed Sheeran tickets when..."
Both are wrong. Simples.
They're doubly wrong when they're not declared, or declared late.
They're quadruplly wrong when one man has bought half the party - even if he is absolutely 100% honest.
"Tory leadership contender Kemi Badenoch has defended MPs taking freebie tickets to events, saying it allows them to spend time with their families.
The Conservatives have accused Labour of being "a government of self-service" and "living the high life" since details emerged of donations to senior figures in the party - including tickets for Sir Keir Starmer to watch football matches and see Taylor Swift in concert.
But while Ms Badenoch accused the new government of "hypocrisy" for taking donations, she also stood by her own register of interests that shows she had taken tickets and hospitality for a rugby game, the Jingle Bell Ball concert, and Ed Sheeran."
That highlights the fundamental problem with this kind of gift
In the private sector corporate hospitality is an investment. It is expected to generate a return - nothing as crude as a bribe for business (that would be illegal) but in building a relationship so that you get a call to pitch or some additional insight. That’s why they are carefully monitored and controlled. It’s not just disclosure - but it’s disclosure *and pre-approval* by someone with the power to say “no”.
An MP should not be participating in this network of implicit obligations.
But politicians’ campaigns ultimately have to be paid for by donations, so would-be MPs and political parties are accepting much bigger contributions. It seems odd to worry about some Ed Sheeran tickets when Badenoch took a £40k donation from Charles Keymer.
So what’s your solution? Ban corporate hospitality, but leave these multi-thousand contributions? Ban the multi-thousand contributions, but then who pays for campaigning?
"It seems odd to worry about some Ed Sheeran tickets when..."
Both are wrong. Simples.
They're doubly wrong when they're not declared, or declared late.
They're quadruplly wrong when one man has bought half the party - even if he is absolutely 100% honest.
OK, thanks, that’s a clear line you have taken.
So, who does pay for political activity? Who pays for leaflets, posters, telephone calls, social media ads, coaching the candidate, travel around the country, etc.? Do we only want the personally wealthy to stand?
"Tory leadership contender Kemi Badenoch has defended MPs taking freebie tickets to events, saying it allows them to spend time with their families.
The Conservatives have accused Labour of being "a government of self-service" and "living the high life" since details emerged of donations to senior figures in the party - including tickets for Sir Keir Starmer to watch football matches and see Taylor Swift in concert.
But while Ms Badenoch accused the new government of "hypocrisy" for taking donations, she also stood by her own register of interests that shows she had taken tickets and hospitality for a rugby game, the Jingle Bell Ball concert, and Ed Sheeran."
That highlights the fundamental problem with this kind of gift
In the private sector corporate hospitality is an investment. It is expected to generate a return - nothing as crude as a bribe for business (that would be illegal) but in building a relationship so that you get a call to pitch or some additional insight. That’s why they are carefully monitored and controlled. It’s not just disclosure - but it’s disclosure *and pre-approval* by someone with the power to say “no”.
An MP should not be participating in this network of implicit obligations.
But politicians’ campaigns ultimately have to be paid for by donations, so would-be MPs and political parties are accepting much bigger contributions. It seems odd to worry about some Ed Sheeran tickets when Badenoch took a £40k donation from Charles Keymer.
So what’s your solution? Ban corporate hospitality, but leave these multi-thousand contributions? Ban the multi-thousand contributions, but then who pays for campaigning?
"It seems odd to worry about some Ed Sheeran tickets when..."
Both are wrong. Simples.
They're doubly wrong when they're not declared, or declared late.
They're quadruplly wrong when one man has bought half the party - even if he is absolutely 100% honest.
OK, thanks, that’s a clear line you have taken.
So, who does pay for political activity? Who pays for leaflets, posters, telephone calls, social media ads, coaching the candidate, travel around the country, etc.? Do we only want the personally wealthy to stand?
There’s a difference between donations to party funds or to a candidate in an election, and donations that are of personal benefit to the MP.
Leaflets and phone calls are legitimate political activity. Tickets to pop concerts for politicians, not so much.
A beloved Cincinnati bakery, whose “cookie poll” has accurately predicted every election outcome but one since 1984, currently has the former president and Republican nominee leading Democrat Kamala Harris in its unscientific survey. Trump notched about 54% support (2,953 cookies) to Harris’ 39% (2,134 cookies), with an “independent” smiley-face cookie scoring 7% (397 cookies), per the latest tally shared with The Post by Busken Bakery.
And we thought it was only the British that did silly things like that around elections.
That said, a random bakery’s straw poll is likely to be as good as any of the media polls we’re seeing.
It’s too close to call, and is likely to remain so all the way to Nov 5th.
The problem is the polling is so opaque that we don't even know if it's close or not. The polls have been manipulated to the point that they are useless. It us unlikely that Trump is ahead in the popular vote. The only question is if Harris's lead is insufficient to carry the gerrymandering electoral college. None would be shocked, though they may be horrified, if Trump carried the EC. Equally there is a body of evidence that suggests a Harris landslide, and not too many would be shocked by that outcome either. In any event the failure of US polling is part of a wider breakdown of trust in American democratic institutions. Putin has certainly got his money's worth there.
"Tory leadership contender Kemi Badenoch has defended MPs taking freebie tickets to events, saying it allows them to spend time with their families.
The Conservatives have accused Labour of being "a government of self-service" and "living the high life" since details emerged of donations to senior figures in the party - including tickets for Sir Keir Starmer to watch football matches and see Taylor Swift in concert.
But while Ms Badenoch accused the new government of "hypocrisy" for taking donations, she also stood by her own register of interests that shows she had taken tickets and hospitality for a rugby game, the Jingle Bell Ball concert, and Ed Sheeran."
That highlights the fundamental problem with this kind of gift
In the private sector corporate hospitality is an investment. It is expected to generate a return - nothing as crude as a bribe for business (that would be illegal) but in building a relationship so that you get a call to pitch or some additional insight. That’s why they are carefully monitored and controlled. It’s not just disclosure - but it’s disclosure *and pre-approval* by someone with the power to say “no”.
An MP should not be participating in this network of implicit obligations.
But politicians’ campaigns ultimately have to be paid for by donations, so would-be MPs and political parties are accepting much bigger contributions. It seems odd to worry about some Ed Sheeran tickets when Badenoch took a £40k donation from Charles Keymer.
So what’s your solution? Ban corporate hospitality, but leave these multi-thousand contributions? Ban the multi-thousand contributions, but then who pays for campaigning?
"It seems odd to worry about some Ed Sheeran tickets when..."
Both are wrong. Simples.
They're doubly wrong when they're not declared, or declared late.
They're quadruplly wrong when one man has bought half the party - even if he is absolutely 100% honest.
OK, thanks, that’s a clear line you have taken.
So, who does pay for political activity? Who pays for leaflets, posters, telephone calls, social media ads, coaching the candidate, travel around the country, etc.? Do we only want the personally wealthy to stand?
This come onto the whole thorny issue of political funding - and I won't pretend to know a workable, sane solution for that. But in my own view: funding should be centrally to parties, not to individuals. That still leaves room for corruption, but it's easier to check at one point than several hundreds.
Edit: but my substantive point is that we have one man who has seemingly 'invested' in a large part of the governing party. Even if he is 100% well-meaning and expects nothing in return, it's a terrible look.
"Tory leadership contender Kemi Badenoch has defended MPs taking freebie tickets to events, saying it allows them to spend time with their families.
The Conservatives have accused Labour of being "a government of self-service" and "living the high life" since details emerged of donations to senior figures in the party - including tickets for Sir Keir Starmer to watch football matches and see Taylor Swift in concert.
But while Ms Badenoch accused the new government of "hypocrisy" for taking donations, she also stood by her own register of interests that shows she had taken tickets and hospitality for a rugby game, the Jingle Bell Ball concert, and Ed Sheeran."
That highlights the fundamental problem with this kind of gift
In the private sector corporate hospitality is an investment. It is expected to generate a return - nothing as crude as a bribe for business (that would be illegal) but in building a relationship so that you get a call to pitch or some additional insight. That’s why they are carefully monitored and controlled. It’s not just disclosure - but it’s disclosure *and pre-approval* by someone with the power to say “no”.
An MP should not be participating in this network of implicit obligations.
But politicians’ campaigns ultimately have to be paid for by donations, so would-be MPs and political parties are accepting much bigger contributions. It seems odd to worry about some Ed Sheeran tickets when Badenoch took a £40k donation from Charles Keymer.
So what’s your solution? Ban corporate hospitality, but leave these multi-thousand contributions? Ban the multi-thousand contributions, but then who pays for campaigning?
"It seems odd to worry about some Ed Sheeran tickets when..."
Both are wrong. Simples.
They're doubly wrong when they're not declared, or declared late.
They're quadruplly wrong when one man has bought half the party - even if he is absolutely 100% honest.
OK, thanks, that’s a clear line you have taken.
So, who does pay for political activity? Who pays for leaflets, posters, telephone calls, social media ads, coaching the candidate, travel around the country, etc.? Do we only want the personally wealthy to stand?
There’s a difference between donations to party funds or to a candidate in an election, and donations that are of personal benefit to the MP.
Leaflets and phone calls are legitimate political activity. Tickets to pop concerts for politicians, not so much.
OK, that is a consistent line that could be implemented in rules.
I remain somewhat concerned that we’re saying Kemi Badenoch would be compromised by Ed Sheeran tickets, so those must be outlawed, but Kemi Badenoch won’t be compromised by a £40,000 donation from Charles Keymer. I find that implausible. But I’m not saying I have any better idea. There is this fundamental clash between politics requiring donations for its funding and the problem with politicians being swayed by donations.
The theoretical advantage - if it could be made to work reliably on a large scale - is much cheaper (another order of magnitude or so) cost to get mass into orbit.
- The payload is very, very limited. - And has to not mind 30,000g - And if you want to got to orbit, requires building a rocket motor into the projectile. - A rocket engine that doesn’t mind 30,000g
Then end result is system that can send very small quantities of something very, very tough (like water). By the time you are building high performance rocket engines into the projectiles, it’s not cheap anymore.
Useful for range testing of defences against very high speed missiles, possibly, though
See SpinLaunch…
Whilst true, Rocket-Assisted Projectiles (see Excalibur) already can withstand 10=15,000 G forces when launched form a conventional artillery piece. Yes, the scale is not the same, but it shows that rockets ad electronics can be made to withstand vast g-forces.
Sure - Bull was firing rocket assisted projectiles into space in the 50s. The problem is that by the time you are looking at an orbital capable projectile, most of your payload is rocket motor. And then the payload has to be resistant to the forces.
The Babylon Gun was going to have payload to LEO of maybe 50kg
Comments
https://www.grocerygazette.co.uk/2024/08/07/treasury-wine-sell-wolf-blass/#:~:text=Treasury will put four brands,5% of the group's profit.
I just finished up an exclusive interview going over a new, major AI model upgrade. Can confirm, tomorrow (now today) will be a big day for developers.
https://x.com/rowancheung/status/1838280020642676802
The rumour is a new Anthropic model.
- And has to not mind 30,000g
- And if you want to got to orbit, requires building a rocket motor into the projectile.
- A rocket engine that doesn’t mind 30,000g
Then end result is system that can send very small quantities of something very, very tough (like water). By the time you are building high performance rocket engines into the projectiles, it’s not cheap anymore.
Useful for range testing of defences against very high speed missiles, possibly, though
See SpinLaunch…
Plane crashes used to be every few weeks, and quickly forgotten about if they were mechanical in nature.
Predictions...
PV: Kamala 👸🏾
EC: DJT 🍊
Strictly: Tasha 💃🏼
SMO: Over by Xmas 🇷🇺 (Don't know which year)
Given that manned missions stick to 3-4g for normal operations*, that’s what I would call a gradual acceleration.
*Yes that Soyuz that exploded pulled the astronauts over 7g during the abort sequence, which would have been damn uncomfortable but better than the alternative!
https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/10/11/soyuz-crew-lands-safely-after-emergency-launch-abort/
Sources said the government could use next month’s budget to change the way its five-year debt rule is assessed, which could allow more spending on housing, roads and hospitals.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/23/starmer-to-strike-more-upbeat-note-as-treasury-plots-spending-boost
Have they been reading PB? Very mixed messages, canning a lot of planned infrastructure building in the first few weeks and only a couple of days ago, briefing, sorry no money can't even do the 40 hospital extensions the Tories identified.
A beloved Cincinnati bakery, whose “cookie poll” has accurately predicted every election outcome but one since 1984, currently has the former president and Republican nominee leading Democrat Kamala Harris in its unscientific survey. Trump notched about 54% support (2,953 cookies) to Harris’ 39% (2,134 cookies), with an “independent” smiley-face cookie scoring 7% (397 cookies), per the latest tally shared with The Post by Busken Bakery.
https://nypost.com/2024/09/23/us-news/trump-leads-cincinnati-cookie-poll-that-has-predicted-every-election-but-one-since-1984/
That said, a random bakery’s straw poll is likely to be as good as any of the media polls we’re seeing.
It’s too close to call, and is likely to remain so all the way to Nov 5th.
In the private sector corporate hospitality is an investment. It is expected to generate a return - nothing as crude as a bribe for business (that would be illegal) but in building a relationship so that you get a call to pitch or some additional insight. That’s why they are carefully monitored and controlled. It’s not just disclosure - but it’s disclosure *and pre-approval* by someone with the power to say “no”.
An MP should not be participating in this network of implicit obligations.
Unless you’re a minister invited to present a trophy or award in an official capacity, then buy your own tickets to events MPs, it’s not as if you can’t afford it yourselves and it looks really bad at the same time as you’re raising taxes and cutting benefits for ordinary people.
There are definitely been MPs in the recent past who were on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and seemed to go to every big race meet going as guest of a gambling company.
It would be interesting to see how these sports and concerts tickets are initiated, I’ll guess it’s more often the MPs people making the call to the event organisers, than the other way around.
Interestingly, I see little problem with some of the declarations we saw from MPs accepting hospitality from their local lower-league football club. I think MPs should attend matches in their constituency and speak to those working there on a regular basis, and very different from the £10k box at Arsenal or tickets for concerts at Wembley.
https://www.sportskeeda.com/f1/5-times-f1-drivers-suffered-high-g-forces-crash
Also, should cut out all the nonsense of gifting a birthday party, knickers for your mistress and dirty weekends away.
Kenny Brack was incredibly lucky though, that was a properly horrific crash. Roland Ratzenburger and Dale Earnhardt not so lucky, the weakest part of the body is the neck and thankfully motorsport safety equipment is better these days.
F1: from memory, the biggest crash I can recall was Raikkonen spinning and ploughing into a barrier at over 50G. He was completely fine.
The most dramatic crash, though, was Grosjean's fireball at Bahrain which ripped his car in two.
All drivers now use HANS devices...
Grosjean’s crash I was totally convinced I’d just watched someone die, and it was a very long couple of minutes to wait with the TV director having cut away from the scene. For anyone who’s interested, what’s left of his car is currently on display at the F1 Exhibition in London until the end of the year. https://f1exhibition.com/london/
His argument was that it restricted movement of the head too much in the car, but as with the introduction of safety harnesses that’s what you actually want in a severe crash. If you have tightened your belts yourself in most race cars, they’re nowhere near tight enough in an accident.
If you want to tackle problems with alcohol then the place to start is with supermarket sales of cheap vodka. That's where you will find the hardcore of problem drinkers.
As I've argued many times before, if you were to halve alcohol duty for on license sales and double it for off license sales (and forbid sales below the alcohol duty rate) then you'd encourage drinking in communal licensed premises which is better then having people drink on their own at home.
Yes I expect to see a DCMS minister at Wembley or Silverstone, it’s part of the job. However, I also want to see them at the European ten-pin bowling championship in Gateshead handing out a trophy, or the British National Gliding Championship on a cold weekend in a field in Gloucestershire.
Concerts there’s almost no excuse, but awards ceremonies like the BAFTAS or Brit Awards you would expect to see a minister there.
Hospitality from events sponsors etc is just lobbying, should be a definite no-no.
Anyway, work to do, which involves being outside in a hot country and doesn’t involve watching live sport.
FWIW we have the Govt "we" elected. The Tories had been in power too long and were terrible. Labour will be worse and it will not take as long as it did with the Tories.
So what’s your solution? Ban corporate hospitality, but leave these multi-thousand contributions? Ban the multi-thousand contributions, but then who pays for campaigning?
Both are wrong. Simples.
They're doubly wrong when they're not declared, or declared late.
They're quadruplly wrong when one man has bought half the party - even if he is absolutely 100% honest.
So, who does pay for political activity? Who pays for leaflets, posters, telephone calls, social media ads, coaching the candidate, travel around the country, etc.? Do we only want the personally wealthy to stand?
Leaflets and phone calls are legitimate political activity. Tickets to pop concerts for politicians, not so much.
It us unlikely that Trump is ahead in the popular vote. The only question is if Harris's lead is insufficient to carry the gerrymandering electoral college. None would be shocked, though they may be horrified, if Trump carried the EC. Equally there is a body of evidence that suggests a Harris landslide, and not too many would be shocked by that outcome either.
In any event the failure of US polling is part of a wider breakdown of trust in American democratic institutions.
Putin has certainly got his money's worth there.
Edit: but my substantive point is that we have one man who has seemingly 'invested' in a large part of the governing party. Even if he is 100% well-meaning and expects nothing in return, it's a terrible look.
NEW THREAD
I remain somewhat concerned that we’re saying Kemi Badenoch would be compromised by Ed Sheeran tickets, so those must be outlawed, but Kemi Badenoch won’t be compromised by a £40,000 donation from Charles Keymer. I find that implausible. But I’m not saying I have any better idea. There is this fundamental clash between politics requiring donations for its funding and the problem with politicians being swayed by donations.
The Babylon Gun was going to have payload to LEO of maybe 50kg