It’s like the League of Empire Loyalists here these past 24 hours.
If there's one thing anti-imperialists need to admit, it is that *how* an empire ends and dissolves matters. It is hard to do well, and in places can be disastrous (the Soviet/Russian empire ~1918 and ~1990; the Ottoman empire ~1920, especially with the experience of the Armenians and the Greek/Turkish population 'exchanges'; or the Indian partition in 1947.
This is another little piece of empire that may well be seen as having ended badly in the medium and long term.
Are you really comparing the recent agreement on Diego Garcia to the Partition of India and the Armenian genocide?!
I am pointing out that ending 'imperialism' can have very negative and long-lasting consequences. I think there are enough examples out there, including the ones I pointed out, to make that fairly unarguable.
That does not mean that imperialism should not end, especially if local populations want it; just that extreme care needs to be taken to ensure those negative consequences are minimised.
I don't think that this has been done here.
The whole place is going to be under water in 100 years time. Of course it will end badly.
No, it won't.
Th rate of sea level rise will be small, per actual year. Given the value of the base, it will be trivial to increase the height of atoll in the areas wanted. Indeed, this has already been done by the Americans on portions of the base, in the past.
See the wholesale construction/raising of islands by China.
The bit the Chagos islanders will live on - that's another matter. Why should the Mauritius bother? They will have the fishing rights.
That bit will sort itself out naturally. Coral atolls grow and shrink to match sealevel changes. They have to otherwise there wouldn't be any left.
That's assuming the reef is alive and growing. Uninhabited that might happen - human habitation tends to stop the process, pretty much.
There's also the matter of pace - depends on the speed of sea level rise. Coral is sloooooooooow.
Not as slow as sea level rise. Indeed averages about 4x faster.
Why bring facts to this?
But am I correct in saying that some coral atolls are being damaged not because of sea-level rise or climate change, but because of chemical composition of the water (or, more accurately, chemicals in the water)?
Here are some actual facts regarding the effect of climate change on coral reefs:
"Climate change is the greatest global threat to coral reef ecosystems. Scientific evidence now clearly indicates that the Earth's atmosphere and ocean are warming, and that these changes are primarily due to greenhouse gases derived from human activities.
As temperatures rise, mass coral bleaching events and infectious disease outbreaks are becoming more frequent. Additionally, carbon dioxide absorbed into the ocean from the atmosphere has already begun to reduce calcification rates in reef-building and reef-associated organisms by altering seawater chemistry through decreases in pH. This process is called ocean acidification.
Climate change will affect coral reef ecosystems, through sea level rise, changes to the frequency and intensity of tropical storms, and altered ocean circulation patterns. When combined, all of these impacts dramatically alter ecosystem function, as well as the goods and services coral reef ecosystems provide to people around the globe."
We have had both record highs for coral and record lows in recent years. The position is undoubtedly more volatile but it remains a fact that corals are currently at record highs and there are something like 30% more corals than there was 5 years ago.
From the article you cite:
"What we should take from this is the reef – the world’s largest living structure – is currently still able to recover from repeated shocks. But these shocks are getting worse and arriving more often, and future recovery is not guaranteed.
This is the rollercoaster ride the reef faces at just 1.1°C of warming. The pattern of disturbance and recovery is shifting – and not in the Reef’s favour."
Sure, its not entirely optimistic and they explain the very positive graphs may well have lags in them. I am not denying there are problems, not at all. Its just that it is a bit more complicated than some of the simplistic models might have led us to believe.
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft. We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...
No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
Sorry but that is rubbish. The cancellation of projects and the shifting of investment away from the North Sea has turned from a trickle into a tidal wave since Milliband got into power. I had a number of potential contracts where the companies were absolutely clear that they had their plans on hold until they saw if Labour won (and followed through on their promises) and which have now been cancelled. Serica, Hartshead, Harbour, Ithaca and Dana are all reducing North Sea investment and reinvesting in exploration and development elsewhere - many of them in Norway.
Prior to the election Labour had been claiming that increasing the windfall tax would push North Sea tax revenues up from the (OBR) predicted £8.6 billion a year in 2028 to something over £10 billion. The latest prediction based on what Labour has proposed/done since it came to power is that that revenue will fall to £2 billion a year at most by 2028. To be honest, the way companies are now fleeing the North Sea I think they will be lucky to make that.
I have had 2 cases in Aberdeen recently and was staying in an hotel in the outskirts near the airport. The number of businesses and industrial estates there is remarkable, there is nothing even close to it in Scotland. Bristow helicopters were flying out from early in the morning (too early for my taste anyway). There were a lot of large jets as well.
The glory days of Aberdeen and Union Street have long since past. John Lewis is gone and the shopping centres are half empty. But there is still a scarily long way to fall. The consequences for Scottish industrial output (along with the consequential loss of Grangemouth) are going to be catastrophic. Scotland needs time to find new jobs and new investment. They could also do with a government that has some idea of the implications this has for the Scottish tax base. This policy of preventing the granting of more licences for the North Sea is the sort of economic vandalism that Thatcher was rightly criticised for during the Howe monetarist period. It is criminally stupid and not a little vicious.
Just wait till GB Energy (headquartered in Aberdeen) gets going.
If they were being given the budget of £22bn that is being wasted on carbon capture I would be more hopeful.
There was a time which carbon capture could have been genuinely useful. It was a time when huge coal burning power stations were our major source of energy. But we closed down the last coal burning power station last week. Even our gas powered stations are playing a smaller role. This strikes me as a classic Westminster catastrophe. By the time they finally get it up and running the need for it has disappeared.
Scotland, to me, is facing an economic tsunami. We need help to rebalance our economy away from plentiful North Sea oil. There is a moral obligation on the UK Treasury, who benefitted so substantially during the peak years, to help. I am genuinely concerned we have a government in Holyrood who are simply failing to recognise the consequences because they want to pretend that we are viable and should be independent on the one hand and a government overly influenced by a fool like Ed Miliband on the other. Neither are recognising the problem let alone seeking to address it. I am seriously pessimistic about Scotland's economic future.
To be fair, there is some investment going in at the renewables hub in Leith, Aberdeen South Harbour, multiple offshore wind farms under construction in the Moray Firth, Firth of Forth and lots more in planning. We're building the largest floating farm in the world, and Ossian could be up to 3.6GW.
But yes, an additional £22 billion into Aberdeen would have been more than nice.
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft. We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...
No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
Sorry but that is rubbish. The cancellation of projects and the shifting of investment away from the North Sea has turned from a trickle into a tidal wave since Milliband got into power. I had a number of potential contracts where the companies were absolutely clear that they had their plans on hold until they saw if Labour won (and followed through on their promises) and which have now been cancelled. Serica, Hartshead, Harbour, Ithaca and Dana are all reducing North Sea investment and reinvesting in exploration and development elsewhere - many of them in Norway.
Prior to the election Labour had been claiming that increasing the windfall tax would push North Sea tax revenues up from the (OBR) predicted £8.6 billion a year in 2028 to something over £10 billion. The latest prediction based on what Labour has proposed/done since it came to power is that that revenue will fall to £2 billion a year at most by 2028. To be honest, the way companies are now fleeing the North Sea I think they will be lucky to make that.
US oil prices at the pump continue to fall but for how long ?
Not for long if Israel goes after the Iranian oil assets. Even though that mostly affects oil to Russia and China it will mean their demand goes elsewhere although there is alot of supply in the world. it also depends if Iran responds by going after Saudi and others oil assets. I wonder if the risk of that is why the Saudis held out an olive branch to Iran recently.
Joe Biden seems happy to let Israel do that. After all the US is a major oil producer. It won't harm any nation who produces oil. Just the consumer and the global economy in the short term.
The Dems don’t want a spike in pump prices just a few weeks from the election . With such narrow margins in the polling it doesn’t need much to tip a swing state.
Biden doesn't seem to care either way from his response when questioned about it.
If the Warmongers in Israel really do want a Trump presidency if this action precipitates one why wouldn't they do it anyway ?
There's also a real question of how open-ended this Israeli operation. In Lebanon may turn out to be. His loony ministers are still using the same rhetoric as in Gaza, a "total victory" over Hezbollah.
This clearly hasn't worked in Gasa - Hamas are still operating- , but it has killed tens of thousands of civilians in horrific circumstances. There's a real risk that the same kind of scenario could unfold in Lebanon, with added pan-Muslim unity against Israel, unless someone in the U.S. finally gets a grip of the situation. Netanyahu is about to embark on a sinilar sttategic and hunanitarian catastrophe as in Gaza, but the level of strategic leadership shown by the U S. so far has been woeful.
It hasn't worked in Gaza, nearly a year on and there is no total victory.
They are also firing into the West Bank as well.
You're right about the US and its strategic leadership. The Israelis are happy to take their weapons and aid but their advice, well, they just treat with contempt and do what they want to.
I've been a supporter of Biden, but his past year of foreign policy has been appalling.
Has the French construction sector hit rock bottom? The French construction sector remains in deep crisis, as reflected in the HCOB PMI for September, which dropped to 37.9 points – the lowest level in nearly a decade, excluding the COVID-19 pandemic period. The index for civil engineering, in particular, saw a sharp decline compared to the previous month, with the steepest contraction in activity once again occurring in the residential property market. In light of this downturn, the question arises whether the sector has finally reached its lowest point.
The French construction sector continues to suffer from rising prices. Although the pace of price increases slowed somewhat in September, input costs are still growing despite historically weak demand. A small silver lining is the decline in subcontractor prices, likely due to construction companies having sharply reduced their reliance on subcontractors by the end of the third quarter.
The outlook for the French construction sector remains bleak. Order intake continues to shrink significantly, and forecasts for future activity are equally pessimistic. Many construction companies have expressed concerns about the weak demand environment, leading to a further wave of layoffs. A recovery in the sector seems likely only through substantial interest rate cuts in the Eurozone, but hopes for such action remain limited at present.
UK construction companies indicated a decisive improvement in output growth momentum during September, driven by faster upturns across all three major categories of activity.
A combination of lower interest rates, domestic economic stability and strong pipelines of infrastructure work have helped to boost order books in recent months.
New project starts contributed to a moderate expansion of employment numbers and a faster rise in purchasing activity across the construction sector in September. However, greater demand for raw materials and the pass-through of higher wages by suppliers led to the steepest increase in input costs for 16 months.
Business optimism edged down to the lowest since April, but remained much higher than the low point seen last October. Survey respondents cited rising sales enquires since the general election, as well as lower borrowing costs and the potential for stronger house building demand as factors supporting business activity expectations in September.
I think the TLDR is that the public are profuoundly unkeen on the government, but perhaps dislike them less than the alternatives.
This isnt really unsurprising. People don't like to think they have made a bad choice. It takes time. But this is supposed to be the honeymoon. A government only a few months old looks like it is on the rocks. Utterly bizarre. It isnt just PBcrazies noticing that this isnt normal.
Meh. Let's wait till Yougov and the other established pollsters are publishing VI again.
The looming threat of all-out war exploding in the Middle East has thrown Dubai into chaos, with flights grounded or delayed as Brits prepare for a mass exodus from the ex-pat paradise
Err, nope.
Flights to war zones have indeed been cancelled, but most of the immigration to Dubai is incoming, from those fleeing the wars. There’s definitely not any signs of an exodus.
Meanwhile, I’m off to the pub.
It is becoming a habit of media outlets of the Mail’s standard to put the fear of god in everyone that we’re inexorably sliding towards imminent armageddon despite no-one really explaining the whys and hows that would work.
I see that @JonO is running for Elmbridge Council next week. Best of luck.
We have no fewer than 38 by-elections over the next fortnight. I’d expect a lot of Labour losses.
How many Reform UK gains? Will Reform UK even stand that many candidates? I think that’s an interesting question: can RefUK transform itself into a traditional party that wins seats? That will be a big determiner of the next general election result.
Instead of losing their majority on Dundee cit coulcil to Labour, The SNP actually increased it by one seat. Have we passed peak Labour in Scotland?
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft. We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...
No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
Sorry but that is rubbish. The cancellation of projects and the shifting of investment away from the North Sea has turned from a trickle into a tidal wave since Milliband got into power. I had a number of potential contracts where the companies were absolutely clear that they had their plans on hold until they saw if Labour won (and followed through on their promises) and which have now been cancelled. Serica, Hartshead, Harbour, Ithaca and Dana are all reducing North Sea investment and reinvesting in exploration and development elsewhere - many of them in Norway.
Prior to the election Labour had been claiming that increasing the windfall tax would push North Sea tax revenues up from the (OBR) predicted £8.6 billion a year in 2028 to something over £10 billion. The latest prediction based on what Labour has proposed/done since it came to power is that that revenue will fall to £2 billion a year at most by 2028. To be honest, the way companies are now fleeing the North Sea I think they will be lucky to make that.
I have had 2 cases in Aberdeen recently and was staying in an hotel in the outskirts near the airport. The number of businesses and industrial estates there is remarkable, there is nothing even close to it in Scotland. Bristow helicopters were flying out from early in the morning (too early for my taste anyway). There were a lot of large jets as well.
The glory days of Aberdeen and Union Street have long since past. John Lewis is gone and the shopping centres are half empty. But there is still a scarily long way to fall. The consequences for Scottish industrial output (along with the consequential loss of Grangemouth) are going to be catastrophic. Scotland needs time to find new jobs and new investment. They could also do with a government that has some idea of the implications this has for the Scottish tax base. This policy of preventing the granting of more licences for the North Sea is the sort of economic vandalism that Thatcher was rightly criticised for during the Howe monetarist period. It is criminally stupid and not a little vicious.
Just wait till GB Energy (headquartered in Aberdeen) gets going.
If they were being given the budget of £22bn that is being wasted on carbon capture I would be more hopeful.
There was a time which carbon capture could have been genuinely useful. It was a time when huge coal burning power stations were our major source of energy. But we closed down the last coal burning power station last week. Even our gas powered stations are playing a smaller role. This strikes me as a classic Westminster catastrophe. By the time they finally get it up and running the need for it has disappeared.
Scotland, to me, is facing an economic tsunami. We need help to rebalance our economy away from plentiful North Sea oil. There is a moral obligation on the UK Treasury, who benefitted so substantially during the peak years, to help. I am genuinely concerned we have a government in Holyrood who are simply failing to recognise the consequences because they want to pretend that we are viable and should be independent on the one hand and a government overly influenced by a fool like Ed Miliband on the other. Neither are recognising the problem let alone seeking to address it. I am seriously pessimistic about Scotland's economic future.
To be fair, there is some investment going in at the renewables hub in Leith, Aberdeen South Harbour, multiple offshore wind farms under construction in the Moray Firth, Firth of Forth and lots more in planning. We're building the largest floating farm in the world, and Ossian could be up to 3.6GW.
But yes, an additional £22 billion into Aberdeen would have been more than nice.
The turbines in the Moray Firth are higher above sea level than Arthur's Seat. Wowsa. Interesting that the bottleneck is the ships used to install them, rather than the grid or port facilities.
The problem with offshore wind is you just don't see it the same way you do cooling towers or blast furnaces, so the economic activity is hidden away. I suppose the same is true for North Sea O&G.
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft. We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...
No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
Sorry but that is rubbish. The cancellation of projects and the shifting of investment away from the North Sea has turned from a trickle into a tidal wave since Milliband got into power. I had a number of potential contracts where the companies were absolutely clear that they had their plans on hold until they saw if Labour won (and followed through on their promises) and which have now been cancelled. Serica, Hartshead, Harbour, Ithaca and Dana are all reducing North Sea investment and reinvesting in exploration and development elsewhere - many of them in Norway.
Prior to the election Labour had been claiming that increasing the windfall tax would push North Sea tax revenues up from the (OBR) predicted £8.6 billion a year in 2028 to something over £10 billion. The latest prediction based on what Labour has proposed/done since it came to power is that that revenue will fall to £2 billion a year at most by 2028. To be honest, the way companies are now fleeing the North Sea I think they will be lucky to make that.
So THAT'S where their £20 billion financial black hole comes from....
I note the reporting describes "almost £22bn over 25 years". That's a very long time window. This is not £22 billion now.
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft. We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...
No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
Sorry but that is rubbish. The cancellation of projects and the shifting of investment away from the North Sea has turned from a trickle into a tidal wave since Milliband got into power. I had a number of potential contracts where the companies were absolutely clear that they had their plans on hold until they saw if Labour won (and followed through on their promises) and which have now been cancelled. Serica, Hartshead, Harbour, Ithaca and Dana are all reducing North Sea investment and reinvesting in exploration and development elsewhere - many of them in Norway.
Prior to the election Labour had been claiming that increasing the windfall tax would push North Sea tax revenues up from the (OBR) predicted £8.6 billion a year in 2028 to something over £10 billion. The latest prediction based on what Labour has proposed/done since it came to power is that that revenue will fall to £2 billion a year at most by 2028. To be honest, the way companies are now fleeing the North Sea I think they will be lucky to make that.
I have had 2 cases in Aberdeen recently and was staying in an hotel in the outskirts near the airport. The number of businesses and industrial estates there is remarkable, there is nothing even close to it in Scotland. Bristow helicopters were flying out from early in the morning (too early for my taste anyway). There were a lot of large jets as well.
The glory days of Aberdeen and Union Street have long since past. John Lewis is gone and the shopping centres are half empty. But there is still a scarily long way to fall. The consequences for Scottish industrial output (along with the consequential loss of Grangemouth) are going to be catastrophic. Scotland needs time to find new jobs and new investment. They could also do with a government that has some idea of the implications this has for the Scottish tax base. This policy of preventing the granting of more licences for the North Sea is the sort of economic vandalism that Thatcher was rightly criticised for during the Howe monetarist period. It is criminally stupid and not a little vicious.
Just wait till GB Energy (headquartered in Aberdeen) gets going.
If they were being given the budget of £22bn that is being wasted on carbon capture I would be more hopeful.
There was a time which carbon capture could have been genuinely useful. It was a time when huge coal burning power stations were our major source of energy. But we closed down the last coal burning power station last week. Even our gas powered stations are playing a smaller role. This strikes me as a classic Westminster catastrophe. By the time they finally get it up and running the need for it has disappeared.
Scotland, to me, is facing an economic tsunami. We need help to rebalance our economy away from plentiful North Sea oil. There is a moral obligation on the UK Treasury, who benefitted so substantially during the peak years, to help. I am genuinely concerned we have a government in Holyrood who are simply failing to recognise the consequences because they want to pretend that we are viable and should be independent on the one hand and a government overly influenced by a fool like Ed Miliband on the other. Neither are recognising the problem let alone seeking to address it. I am seriously pessimistic about Scotland's economic future.
I’m struggling to recall those crazy, hazy days when you were anything other than seriously pessimistic..
We have been running a substantial trade deficit for well over 20 years. We got a lot of growth out of financial services, Edinburgh did particularly well, but that has been a lot more difficult since 2008. Our industrial base is continuing to decline. Our education system, which we once could be particularly proud of, is declining. Our public sector is too large and, frankly, too well paid sucking talent out of the economy. We need to do some seriously hard thinking about what our children and their children are going to do for a living.
So, what can we do?
We have some excellent Universities in St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde. We have some good ones in Dundee, Aberdeen and Stirling. They seem to me the obvious base for our future, just as Monasteries were in the middle ages .
Not only do they bring a lot of money into Scotland through foreign students but they also spin off some businesses and generate significant investment such as the Wellcome Trust in Dundee and Microsoft in Edinburgh. We need to do all we can to generate more such businesses. That will include enterprise zones with lower taxes, close liaison between what the Universities teach and what these businesses of tomorrow want, tax and investment incentives and we need to encourage those trained here to stay and create their businesses here. They have the capacity to replace those industrial estates around Aberdeen.
We still have strength in financial services but it is absolutely essential that that business remains closely tied with London to which it is back office and services.
We need to try and get our tax rates competitive with the rest of the UK, to be focused on our economy and close the door on constitutional uncertainty, indeed every kind of uncertainty that we can control.
But this is not likely to happen, hence my pessimism.
That can be done very quickly. In 2019 the govt tried to double the number of overseas students to 500k and has already succeeded. Just a shame they didn't seem to realise that they get classed as immigrants so we are reversing that policy at great harm to our balance of payments and university sector.
OK, I know very little of the story here, but that's not stopped anyone else.
But some things that smell a bit odd...
First, was this another poonami that the outgoing government left for Starmer? Was it a thing that really had to happen, but had hefty downsides (especially for true blue Tories), so it was just left in the in-tray? (Genuinely, I don't know how viable the 'just let the status quo roll on' thing is.)
Second, who is leaking the stuff to the Times?
Third, who benefits from the story, Conservative leadership-wise? Tom T is ferocious, national security-wise, isn't he? And however disappointing he is, isn't he a more likely receptacle for Cleverly votes looking for a new home than Kemi?
I honestly think they genuinely thought this would make them look good. Because British Empire = bad. And they don't really mix with anyone who thinks differently. We see this a lot from Labour. Policy decisions by what will most annoy the right.
Annoying the right is remarkably easy these days tbf. They seem to have only 2 modes. (2) On the verge of erupting in fury. (2) Furious.
On the Middle East question, very little in the UK and Europe in the last 24 hours, is the statement from Saudi Arabia.
Under huge political pressure, they say they want to "put their differences with Iran to one side", and improve ties. This was also signed by the other Gulf Arab states.
This is very bad news for both Israel and West, because it means that not only is the goal of Israeli-Gulf rapprochement going down the plughole, but also that Netanyahu's "war without end" on four fronts, is beginning to create the kind of pan-Muslim climate of the 1950s to the 1970s ; exactly in opposite to Israel's, and the West's, long-term interests.
Albeit Israel did manage to defeat all its Muslim neighbours in the 1970s and 1950s yes Netanyahu has overreached when he should just have focused on defeating Hamas
On the Middle East question, very little in the UK and Europe in the last 24 hours, is the statement from Saudi Arabia.
Under huge political pressure, they say they want to "put their differences with Iran to one side", and improve ties. This was also signed by the other Gulf Arab states.
This is very bad news for both Israel and West, because it means that not only is the goal of Israeli-Gulf rapprochement going down the plughole, but also that Netanyahu's "war without end" on four fronts, is beginning to create the kind of pan-Muslim climate of the 1950s to the 1970s ; exactly in opposite to Israel's, and the West's, long-term interests.
Albeit Israel did manage to defeat all its Muslim neighbours in the 1970s and 1950s yes Netanyahu has overreached when he should just have focused on defeating Hamas
However, this kind of dynamic would be a disaster for both Israel and the West in the long-term, though. The Israelis really only stabilised their geopolitical position in the 1970s by breaking off the Egyptians from the pan-Arab alliance, and doing a land-for-peace deal with them, for instance.
The Saudis and Gulf Arab states are now also taking about not allowing any overflights of the territory for any attack against Iran. It's going to take the West a long time to understand how damaging indulging Netanyahu's almost every whim has turned out to be.
From Biden and Harris' and Starmer's perspective Saudi not allowing Israeli bombers overflights to attack Iran is a good thing.
It is only Trump who really wants a war with Iran like Netanyahu
Interestingly US Dem Senator Chris Murphy suggested that Netanyahu is trying to get Trump elected and that’s why he’s refused any ceasefire in Gaza .
Putin and Netanyahu both want a Trump win. As Trump would effectively dump backing for Zelansky and push him to make a peace deal with Putin handing over much of Eastern Ukraine to Russia and then shift arms to Israel to support Netanyahu in a full on war with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran
Bibi also wants a Trump win because, like Trump, he is a corrupt grifter who is using political power and whipping up nationalism to ward off going to jail. (There are also differences: Bibi is way better at this than Trump.) The more corrupt grifters whipping up nationalism in charge, the better for him.
Has the French construction sector hit rock bottom? The French construction sector remains in deep crisis, as reflected in the HCOB PMI for September, which dropped to 37.9 points – the lowest level in nearly a decade, excluding the COVID-19 pandemic period. The index for civil engineering, in particular, saw a sharp decline compared to the previous month, with the steepest contraction in activity once again occurring in the residential property market. In light of this downturn, the question arises whether the sector has finally reached its lowest point.
The French construction sector continues to suffer from rising prices. Although the pace of price increases slowed somewhat in September, input costs are still growing despite historically weak demand. A small silver lining is the decline in subcontractor prices, likely due to construction companies having sharply reduced their reliance on subcontractors by the end of the third quarter.
The outlook for the French construction sector remains bleak. Order intake continues to shrink significantly, and forecasts for future activity are equally pessimistic. Many construction companies have expressed concerns about the weak demand environment, leading to a further wave of layoffs. A recovery in the sector seems likely only through substantial interest rate cuts in the Eurozone, but hopes for such action remain limited at present.
UK construction companies indicated a decisive improvement in output growth momentum during September, driven by faster upturns across all three major categories of activity.
A combination of lower interest rates, domestic economic stability and strong pipelines of infrastructure work have helped to boost order books in recent months.
New project starts contributed to a moderate expansion of employment numbers and a faster rise in purchasing activity across the construction sector in September. However, greater demand for raw materials and the pass-through of higher wages by suppliers led to the steepest increase in input costs for 16 months.
Business optimism edged down to the lowest since April, but remained much higher than the low point seen last October. Survey respondents cited rising sales enquires since the general election, as well as lower borrowing costs and the potential for stronger house building demand as factors supporting business activity expectations in September.
I think the TLDR is that the public are profuoundly unkeen on the government, but perhaps dislike them less than the alternatives.
This isnt really unsurprising. People don't like to think they have made a bad choice. It takes time. But this is supposed to be the honeymoon. A government only a few months old looks like it is on the rocks. Utterly bizarre. It isnt just PBcrazies noticing that this isnt normal.
Meh. Let's wait till Yougov and the other established pollsters are publishing VI again.
With an approval rating of 18%, and falling, I'd be surprised if Labour have a lead, by the time Yougov start doing voting intentions.
OK, I know very little of the story here, but that's not stopped anyone else.
But some things that smell a bit odd...
First, was this another poonami that the outgoing government left for Starmer? Was it a thing that really had to happen, but had hefty downsides (especially for true blue Tories), so it was just left in the in-tray? (Genuinely, I don't know how viable the 'just let the status quo roll on' thing is.)
Second, who is leaking the stuff to the Times?
Third, who benefits from the story, Conservative leadership-wise? Tom T is ferocious, national security-wise, isn't he? And however disappointing he is, isn't he a more likely receptacle for Cleverly votes looking for a new home than Kemi?
I honestly think they genuinely thought this would make them look good. Because British Empire = bad. And they don't really mix with anyone who thinks differently. We see this a lot from Labour. Policy decisions by what will most annoy the right.
I dunno about that. In this case, I really dunno.
Did the government really choose to do this, or is it putting the best face on something it didn't really have a realistic choice about? Forget Dave's claims of a veto- by the time he became Foreign Secretary, he knew it was an interim gig and his veto was a delay at most.
But the bigger picture is simple. This government will do things that you don't like and that I don't like. Not always because they are seeking to taunt, but because the Conservatives made in utter Horlicks of governing in recent years and so they lost. This is what losing looks like, and it's why sensible parties try to avoid it.
As of now, I don't see much evidence that the Conservatives have recovered their senses.
It's simpler than that I think. Given the UK was found to be clear breach of international law in splitting Chagos from Mauritius at time of independence and it wants to retain the Diego Garcia base mainly for the Americans without contestation, it has no choice but to deal with the Mauritius government. In those terms it is likely to be a good deal.
We can argue about the rightness of that calculation but it is a serious decision from Starmer when no-one else in politics is being serious.
I'd have gone with handing the Chagos over to the Chagos islanders and their descendants.
Then give them a referendum on either some kind of UK related status (Chagos would need outside money input to make it viable) or joining Mauritius.
Or the Maldives - closer and shares a lot of the common interest in the area. The UK and Maldives had spent a lot of time looking at the question of overlapping Economic Zones of Interest over the years.
This is not a matter of preference, it is a matter of law. The UN has determined that the UK broke international law. Either you accept the remedy or you don´t. There is no legal basis to do anything beyond returning the Chagos to Mauritius, in this case conditional on the maintenance of the base at DG which is why the US welcomed the deal. As for the comments re: Guyana, the fact is that the Cooperative Republic of Guyana has its territorial integrity legally recognised by the UN charter, and it is an attack by Venezuela that would be in breach of international law.
It is a serious deal and by hypocritically attacking it, Cleverly has joined Jenrick and Badenoch in the dunces class.
Seems like only Tom Tugendhat got the memo that the Tories need to start behaving like adults.
It's very much a matter of preference, or at any rate politics.
You know as well as the rest of us do that rulings of the UN are adhered to when States wish to adhere to them, and ignored when States wish to ignore them.
With no means of enforcement, and no common standards, public international law is really an agreed-upon fiction.
And destined to remain so as long as everyone thinks like this.
OK, I know very little of the story here, but that's not stopped anyone else.
But some things that smell a bit odd...
First, was this another poonami that the outgoing government left for Starmer? Was it a thing that really had to happen, but had hefty downsides (especially for true blue Tories), so it was just left in the in-tray? (Genuinely, I don't know how viable the 'just let the status quo roll on' thing is.)
Second, who is leaking the stuff to the Times?
Third, who benefits from the story, Conservative leadership-wise? Tom T is ferocious, national security-wise, isn't he? And however disappointing he is, isn't he a more likely receptacle for Cleverly votes looking for a new home than Kemi?
I honestly think they genuinely thought this would make them look good. Because British Empire = bad. And they don't really mix with anyone who thinks differently. We see this a lot from Labour. Policy decisions by what will most annoy the right.
Annoying the right is remarkably easy these days tbf. They seem to have only 2 modes. (2) On the verge of erupting in fury. (2) Furious.
Patriotism is one of their weirder areas which really needs some clearer thinking.
The UK is simultaneously somewhere that must never be questioned or put down and a crime ridden marxist backwater that anyone with a few quid must escape immediately. Very confused.
I see that @JonO is running for Elmbridge Council next week. Best of luck.
We have no fewer than 38 by-elections over the next fortnight. I’d expect a lot of Labour losses.
How many Reform UK gains? Will Reform UK even stand that many candidates? I think that’s an interesting question: can RefUK transform itself into a traditional party that wins seats? That will be a big determiner of the next general election result.
Instead of losing their majority on Dundee cit coulcil to Labour, The SNP actually increased it by one seat. Have we passed peak Labour in Scotland?
That's just a result of going from a multimember election to a single member by-election. The SNP vote share was down and the Labour vote share up.
On the Middle East question, very little in the UK and Europe in the last 24 hours, is the statement from Saudi Arabia.
Under huge political pressure, they say they want to "put their differences with Iran to one side", and improve ties. This was also signed by the other Gulf Arab states.
This is very bad news for both Israel and West, because it means that not only is the goal of Israeli-Gulf rapprochement going down the plughole, but also that Netanyahu's "war without end" on four fronts, is beginning to create the kind of pan-Muslim climate of the 1950s to the 1970s ; exactly in opposite to Israel's, and the West's, long-term interests.
Albeit Israel did manage to defeat all its Muslim neighbours in the 1970s and 1950s yes Netanyahu has overreached when he should just have focused on defeating Hamas
On the Middle East question, very little in the UK and Europe in the last 24 hours, is the statement from Saudi Arabia.
Under huge political pressure, they say they want to "put their differences with Iran to one side", and improve ties. This was also signed by the other Gulf Arab states.
This is very bad news for both Israel and West, because it means that not only is the goal of Israeli-Gulf rapprochement going down the plughole, but also that Netanyahu's "war without end" on four fronts, is beginning to create the kind of pan-Muslim climate of the 1950s to the 1970s ; exactly in opposite to Israel's, and the West's, long-term interests.
Albeit Israel did manage to defeat all its Muslim neighbours in the 1970s and 1950s yes Netanyahu has overreached when he should just have focused on defeating Hamas
However, this kind of dynamic would be a disaster for both Israel and the West in the long-term, though. The Israelis really only stabilised their geopolitical position in the 1970s by breaking off the Egyptians from the pan-Arab alliance, and doing a land-for-peace deal with them, for instance.
The Saudis and Gulf Arab states are now also taking about not allowing any overflights of the territory for any attack against Iran. It's going to take the West a long time to understand how damaging indulging Netanyahu's almost every whim has turned out to be.
From Biden and Harris' and Starmer's perspective Saudi not allowing Israeli bombers overflights to attack Iran is a good thing.
It is only Trump who really wants a war with Iran like Netanyahu
Interestingly US Dem Senator Chris Murphy suggested that Netanyahu is trying to get Trump elected and that’s why he’s refused any ceasefire in Gaza .
Putin and Netanyahu both want a Trump win. As Trump would effectively dump backing for Zelansky and push him to make a peace deal with Putin handing over much of Eastern Ukraine to Russia and then shift arms to Israel to support Netanyahu in a full on war with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran
Bibi also wants a Trump win because, like Trump, he is a corrupt grifter who is using political power and whipping up nationalism to ward off going to jail. (There are also differences: Bibi is way better at this than Trump.) The more corrupt grifters whipping up nationalism in charge, the better for him.
Bibi would make the world burn, to stay out of gaol.
On the Middle East question, very little in the UK and Europe in the last 24 hours, is the statement from Saudi Arabia.
Under huge political pressure, they say they want to "put their differences with Iran to one side", and improve ties. This was also signed by the other Gulf Arab states.
This is very bad news for both Israel and West, because it means that not only is the goal of Israeli-Gulf rapprochement going down the plughole, but also that Netanyahu's "war without end" on four fronts, is beginning to create the kind of pan-Muslim climate of the 1950s to the 1970s ; exactly in opposite to Israel's, and the West's, long-term interests.
Albeit Israel did manage to defeat all its Muslim neighbours in the 1970s and 1950s yes Netanyahu has overreached when he should just have focused on defeating Hamas
On the Middle East question, very little in the UK and Europe in the last 24 hours, is the statement from Saudi Arabia.
Under huge political pressure, they say they want to "put their differences with Iran to one side", and improve ties. This was also signed by the other Gulf Arab states.
This is very bad news for both Israel and West, because it means that not only is the goal of Israeli-Gulf rapprochement going down the plughole, but also that Netanyahu's "war without end" on four fronts, is beginning to create the kind of pan-Muslim climate of the 1950s to the 1970s ; exactly in opposite to Israel's, and the West's, long-term interests.
Albeit Israel did manage to defeat all its Muslim neighbours in the 1970s and 1950s yes Netanyahu has overreached when he should just have focused on defeating Hamas
However, this kind of dynamic would be a disaster for both Israel and the West in the long-term, though. The Israelis really only stabilised their geopolitical position in the 1970s by breaking off the Egyptians from the pan-Arab alliance, and doing a land-for-peace deal with them, for instance.
The Saudis and Gulf Arab states are now also taking about not allowing any overflights of the territory for any attack against Iran. It's going to take the West a long time to understand how damaging indulging Netanyahu's almost every whim has turned out to be.
From Biden and Harris' and Starmer's perspective Saudi not allowing Israeli bombers overflights to attack Iran is a good thing.
It is only Trump who really wants a war with Iran like Netanyahu
Interestingly US Dem Senator Chris Murphy suggested that Netanyahu is trying to get Trump elected and that’s why he’s refused any ceasefire in Gaza .
Putin and Netanyahu both want a Trump win. As Trump would effectively dump backing for Zelansky and push him to make a peace deal with Putin handing over much of Eastern Ukraine to Russia and then shift arms to Israel to support Netanyahu in a full on war with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran
Bibi also wants a Trump win because, like Trump, he is a corrupt grifter who is using political power and whipping up nationalism to ward off going to jail. (There are also differences: Bibi is way better at this than Trump.) The more corrupt grifters whipping up nationalism in charge, the better for him.
Bibi would make the world burn, to stay out of gaol.
Bibi IS making the world burn to stay out of jail.
On the Middle East question, very little in the UK and Europe in the last 24 hours, is the statement from Saudi Arabia.
Under huge political pressure, they say they want to "put their differences with Iran to one side", and improve ties. This was also signed by the other Gulf Arab states.
This is very bad news for both Israel and West, because it means that not only is the goal of Israeli-Gulf rapprochement going down the plughole, but also that Netanyahu's "war without end" on four fronts, is beginning to create the kind of pan-Muslim climate of the 1950s to the 1970s ; exactly in opposite to Israel's, and the West's, long-term interests.
Albeit Israel did manage to defeat all its Muslim neighbours in the 1970s and 1950s yes Netanyahu has overreached when he should just have focused on defeating Hamas
On the Middle East question, very little in the UK and Europe in the last 24 hours, is the statement from Saudi Arabia.
Under huge political pressure, they say they want to "put their differences with Iran to one side", and improve ties. This was also signed by the other Gulf Arab states.
This is very bad news for both Israel and West, because it means that not only is the goal of Israeli-Gulf rapprochement going down the plughole, but also that Netanyahu's "war without end" on four fronts, is beginning to create the kind of pan-Muslim climate of the 1950s to the 1970s ; exactly in opposite to Israel's, and the West's, long-term interests.
Albeit Israel did manage to defeat all its Muslim neighbours in the 1970s and 1950s yes Netanyahu has overreached when he should just have focused on defeating Hamas
However, this kind of dynamic would be a disaster for both Israel and the West in the long-term, though. The Israelis really only stabilised their geopolitical position in the 1970s by breaking off the Egyptians from the pan-Arab alliance, and doing a land-for-peace deal with them, for instance.
The Saudis and Gulf Arab states are now also taking about not allowing any overflights of the territory for any attack against Iran. It's going to take the West a long time to understand how damaging indulging Netanyahu's almost every whim has turned out to be.
From Biden and Harris' and Starmer's perspective Saudi not allowing Israeli bombers overflights to attack Iran is a good thing.
It is only Trump who really wants a war with Iran like Netanyahu
Interestingly US Dem Senator Chris Murphy suggested that Netanyahu is trying to get Trump elected and that’s why he’s refused any ceasefire in Gaza .
Putin and Netanyahu both want a Trump win. As Trump would effectively dump backing for Zelansky and push him to make a peace deal with Putin handing over much of Eastern Ukraine to Russia and then shift arms to Israel to support Netanyahu in a full on war with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran
Bibi also wants a Trump win because, like Trump, he is a corrupt grifter who is using political power and whipping up nationalism to ward off going to jail. (There are also differences: Bibi is way better at this than Trump.) The more corrupt grifters whipping up nationalism in charge, the better for him.
Bibi would make the world burn, to stay out of gaol.
Bibi IS making the world burn to stay out of jail.
A sacrifice he is happy to make aided and abetted by allies in the west.
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft. We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...
No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
Sorry but that is rubbish. The cancellation of projects and the shifting of investment away from the North Sea has turned from a trickle into a tidal wave since Milliband got into power. I had a number of potential contracts where the companies were absolutely clear that they had their plans on hold until they saw if Labour won (and followed through on their promises) and which have now been cancelled. Serica, Hartshead, Harbour, Ithaca and Dana are all reducing North Sea investment and reinvesting in exploration and development elsewhere - many of them in Norway.
Prior to the election Labour had been claiming that increasing the windfall tax would push North Sea tax revenues up from the (OBR) predicted £8.6 billion a year in 2028 to something over £10 billion. The latest prediction based on what Labour has proposed/done since it came to power is that that revenue will fall to £2 billion a year at most by 2028. To be honest, the way companies are now fleeing the North Sea I think they will be lucky to make that.
This is inevitable. Even with new licenses, NSTA are projecting a fall of 95% in production by 2050 (compared with 97% under Miliband). How would you prevent that - even bigger subsidies?
That's absolutely brutal and I entirely agree that this is going to cause problems for the Treasury and for the economy in the NE of Scotland. Just the idea that it's down to Ed Miliband seems a bit overblown and melodramatic.
Credit to Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce though - some of the best PR in ages with "100 days to save 100,000 jobs" .
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft. We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...
No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
Sorry but that is rubbish. The cancellation of projects and the shifting of investment away from the North Sea has turned from a trickle into a tidal wave since Milliband got into power. I had a number of potential contracts where the companies were absolutely clear that they had their plans on hold until they saw if Labour won (and followed through on their promises) and which have now been cancelled. Serica, Hartshead, Harbour, Ithaca and Dana are all reducing North Sea investment and reinvesting in exploration and development elsewhere - many of them in Norway.
Prior to the election Labour had been claiming that increasing the windfall tax would push North Sea tax revenues up from the (OBR) predicted £8.6 billion a year in 2028 to something over £10 billion. The latest prediction based on what Labour has proposed/done since it came to power is that that revenue will fall to £2 billion a year at most by 2028. To be honest, the way companies are now fleeing the North Sea I think they will be lucky to make that.
I have had 2 cases in Aberdeen recently and was staying in an hotel in the outskirts near the airport. The number of businesses and industrial estates there is remarkable, there is nothing even close to it in Scotland. Bristow helicopters were flying out from early in the morning (too early for my taste anyway). There were a lot of large jets as well.
The glory days of Aberdeen and Union Street have long since past. John Lewis is gone and the shopping centres are half empty. But there is still a scarily long way to fall. The consequences for Scottish industrial output (along with the consequential loss of Grangemouth) are going to be catastrophic. Scotland needs time to find new jobs and new investment. They could also do with a government that has some idea of the implications this has for the Scottish tax base. This policy of preventing the granting of more licences for the North Sea is the sort of economic vandalism that Thatcher was rightly criticised for during the Howe monetarist period. It is criminally stupid and not a little vicious.
Just wait till GB Energy (headquartered in Aberdeen) gets going.
If they were being given the budget of £22bn that is being wasted on carbon capture I would be more hopeful.
There was a time which carbon capture could have been genuinely useful. It was a time when huge coal burning power stations were our major source of energy. But we closed down the last coal burning power station last week. Even our gas powered stations are playing a smaller role. This strikes me as a classic Westminster catastrophe. By the time they finally get it up and running the need for it has disappeared.
Scotland, to me, is facing an economic tsunami. We need help to rebalance our economy away from plentiful North Sea oil. There is a moral obligation on the UK Treasury, who benefitted so substantially during the peak years, to help. I am genuinely concerned we have a government in Holyrood who are simply failing to recognise the consequences because they want to pretend that we are viable and should be independent on the one hand and a government overly influenced by a fool like Ed Miliband on the other. Neither are recognising the problem let alone seeking to address it. I am seriously pessimistic about Scotland's economic future.
I’m struggling to recall those crazy, hazy days when you were anything other than seriously pessimistic..
We have been running a substantial trade deficit for well over 20 years. We got a lot of growth out of financial services, Edinburgh did particularly well, but that has been a lot more difficult since 2008. Our industrial base is continuing to decline. Our education system, which we once could be particularly proud of, is declining. Our public sector is too large and, frankly, too well paid sucking talent out of the economy. We need to do some seriously hard thinking about what our children and their children are going to do for a living.
So, what can we do?
We have some excellent Universities in St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde. We have some good ones in Dundee, Aberdeen and Stirling. They seem to me the obvious base for our future, just as Monasteries were in the middle ages .
Not only do they bring a lot of money into Scotland through foreign students but they also spin off some businesses and generate significant investment such as the Wellcome Trust in Dundee and Microsoft in Edinburgh. We need to do all we can to generate more such businesses. That will include enterprise zones with lower taxes, close liaison between what the Universities teach and what these businesses of tomorrow want, tax and investment incentives and we need to encourage those trained here to stay and create their businesses here. They have the capacity to replace those industrial estates around Aberdeen.
We still have strength in financial services but it is absolutely essential that that business remains closely tied with London to which it is back office and services.
We need to try and get our tax rates competitive with the rest of the UK, to be focused on our economy and close the door on constitutional uncertainty, indeed every kind of uncertainty that we can control.
But this is not likely to happen, hence my pessimism.
That can be done very quickly. In 2019 the govt tried to double the number of overseas students to 500k and has already succeeded. Just a shame they didn't seem to realise that they get classed as immigrants so we are reversing that policy at great harm to our balance of payments and university sector.
I had dinner with some professors at Edinburgh on Monday. They reported that the internal accounts were showing that the University was losing money on students from England paying £9250 a year, let alone the Scottish students who have approximately £7k paid on their behalf by the Scottish government. Post grad students were more profitable, especially the foreign students, but even they were struggling to cover their costs if they needed a lot of lab time.
The number of Chinese students has fallen sharply. Not sure if that indicates the state of the Chinese economy or other factors. The numbers from India and Nigeria are increasing but overall numbers have not fully recovered from Covid and the budgets are not looking great.
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft. We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...
No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
Sorry but that is rubbish. The cancellation of projects and the shifting of investment away from the North Sea has turned from a trickle into a tidal wave since Milliband got into power. I had a number of potential contracts where the companies were absolutely clear that they had their plans on hold until they saw if Labour won (and followed through on their promises) and which have now been cancelled. Serica, Hartshead, Harbour, Ithaca and Dana are all reducing North Sea investment and reinvesting in exploration and development elsewhere - many of them in Norway.
Prior to the election Labour had been claiming that increasing the windfall tax would push North Sea tax revenues up from the (OBR) predicted £8.6 billion a year in 2028 to something over £10 billion. The latest prediction based on what Labour has proposed/done since it came to power is that that revenue will fall to £2 billion a year at most by 2028. To be honest, the way companies are now fleeing the North Sea I think they will be lucky to make that.
This is inevitable. Even with new licenses, NSTA are projecting a fall of 95% in production by 2050 (compared with 97% under Miliband).
That's absolutely brutal and I entirely agree that this is going to cause problems for the Treasury and for the economy in the NE of Scotland. Just the idea that it's down to Ed Miliband seems a bit overblown and melodramatic.
Credit to Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce though - some of the best PR in ages with "100 days to save 100,000 jobs" .
Well no it wasn't inevitable. The OBR numbers show that the decision will cost the UK at least £8 billion a year and the whole point of continuing was to help fund the transiiton. Turning that tap off in the way Miliband is proposing will do nothing to stop hydrocarbon consumption (we will just import it) will lose the Treasury billions of pounds, will cost upwards of 150,000 jobs and will cripple our petrochemical industry (all those plastics, lubricants and coolants you need to make and drive electric cars). There is simply no upside to it no matter what perspective you take.
On the Middle East question, very little in the UK and Europe in the last 24 hours, is the statement from Saudi Arabia.
Under huge political pressure, they say they want to "put their differences with Iran to one side", and improve ties. This was also signed by the other Gulf Arab states.
This is very bad news for both Israel and West, because it means that not only is the goal of Israeli-Gulf rapprochement going down the plughole, but also that Netanyahu's "war without end" on four fronts, is beginning to create the kind of pan-Muslim climate of the 1950s to the 1970s ; exactly in opposite to Israel's, and the West's, long-term interests.
Albeit Israel did manage to defeat all its Muslim neighbours in the 1970s and 1950s yes Netanyahu has overreached when he should just have focused on defeating Hamas
On the Middle East question, very little in the UK and Europe in the last 24 hours, is the statement from Saudi Arabia.
Under huge political pressure, they say they want to "put their differences with Iran to one side", and improve ties. This was also signed by the other Gulf Arab states.
This is very bad news for both Israel and West, because it means that not only is the goal of Israeli-Gulf rapprochement going down the plughole, but also that Netanyahu's "war without end" on four fronts, is beginning to create the kind of pan-Muslim climate of the 1950s to the 1970s ; exactly in opposite to Israel's, and the West's, long-term interests.
Albeit Israel did manage to defeat all its Muslim neighbours in the 1970s and 1950s yes Netanyahu has overreached when he should just have focused on defeating Hamas
However, this kind of dynamic would be a disaster for both Israel and the West in the long-term, though. The Israelis really only stabilised their geopolitical position in the 1970s by breaking off the Egyptians from the pan-Arab alliance, and doing a land-for-peace deal with them, for instance.
The Saudis and Gulf Arab states are now also taking about not allowing any overflights of the territory for any attack against Iran. It's going to take the West a long time to understand how damaging indulging Netanyahu's almost every whim has turned out to be.
From Biden and Harris' and Starmer's perspective Saudi not allowing Israeli bombers overflights to attack Iran is a good thing.
It is only Trump who really wants a war with Iran like Netanyahu
Interestingly US Dem Senator Chris Murphy suggested that Netanyahu is trying to get Trump elected and that’s why he’s refused any ceasefire in Gaza .
Putin and Netanyahu both want a Trump win. As Trump would effectively dump backing for Zelansky and push him to make a peace deal with Putin handing over much of Eastern Ukraine to Russia and then shift arms to Israel to support Netanyahu in a full on war with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran
Bibi also wants a Trump win because, like Trump, he is a corrupt grifter who is using political power and whipping up nationalism to ward off going to jail. (There are also differences: Bibi is way better at this than Trump.) The more corrupt grifters whipping up nationalism in charge, the better for him.
Bibi would make the world burn, to stay out of gaol.
Bibi IS making the world burn to stay out of jail.
A sacrifice he is happy to make aided and abetted by allies in the west.
The U.S has done nothing to stop him, really, and the EU and Starmer have been nowhere either.
In the list of most visited websites last month, Rightmove ranked above PornHub, suggesting the British are (marginally) more interested in property smut than the literal kind.
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft. We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...
No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
Sorry but that is rubbish. The cancellation of projects and the shifting of investment away from the North Sea has turned from a trickle into a tidal wave since Milliband got into power. I had a number of potential contracts where the companies were absolutely clear that they had their plans on hold until they saw if Labour won (and followed through on their promises) and which have now been cancelled. Serica, Hartshead, Harbour, Ithaca and Dana are all reducing North Sea investment and reinvesting in exploration and development elsewhere - many of them in Norway.
Prior to the election Labour had been claiming that increasing the windfall tax would push North Sea tax revenues up from the (OBR) predicted £8.6 billion a year in 2028 to something over £10 billion. The latest prediction based on what Labour has proposed/done since it came to power is that that revenue will fall to £2 billion a year at most by 2028. To be honest, the way companies are now fleeing the North Sea I think they will be lucky to make that.
This is inevitable. Even with new licenses, NSTA are projecting a fall of 95% in production by 2050 (compared with 97% under Miliband).
That's absolutely brutal and I entirely agree that this is going to cause problems for the Treasury and for the economy in the NE of Scotland. Just the idea that it's down to Ed Miliband seems a bit overblown and melodramatic.
Credit to Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce though - some of the best PR in ages with "100 days to save 100,000 jobs" .
Well no it wasn't inevitable. The OBR numbers show that the decision will cost the UK at least £8 billion a year and the whole point of continuing was to help fund the transiiton. Turning that tap off in the way Miliband is proposing will do nothing to stop hydrocarbon consumption (we will just import it) will lose the Treasury billions of pounds, will cost upwards of 150,000 jobs and will cripple our petrochemical industry (all those plastics, lubricants and coolants you need to make and drive electric cars). There is simply no upside to it no matter what perspective you take.
Hang on, the OBR stated that the fall to £2 billion would occur in their report from April '24 - that's before Miliband got in.
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft. We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...
No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
Sorry but that is rubbish. The cancellation of projects and the shifting of investment away from the North Sea has turned from a trickle into a tidal wave since Milliband got into power. I had a number of potential contracts where the companies were absolutely clear that they had their plans on hold until they saw if Labour won (and followed through on their promises) and which have now been cancelled. Serica, Hartshead, Harbour, Ithaca and Dana are all reducing North Sea investment and reinvesting in exploration and development elsewhere - many of them in Norway.
Prior to the election Labour had been claiming that increasing the windfall tax would push North Sea tax revenues up from the (OBR) predicted £8.6 billion a year in 2028 to something over £10 billion. The latest prediction based on what Labour has proposed/done since it came to power is that that revenue will fall to £2 billion a year at most by 2028. To be honest, the way companies are now fleeing the North Sea I think they will be lucky to make that.
I have had 2 cases in Aberdeen recently and was staying in an hotel in the outskirts near the airport. The number of businesses and industrial estates there is remarkable, there is nothing even close to it in Scotland. Bristow helicopters were flying out from early in the morning (too early for my taste anyway). There were a lot of large jets as well.
The glory days of Aberdeen and Union Street have long since past. John Lewis is gone and the shopping centres are half empty. But there is still a scarily long way to fall. The consequences for Scottish industrial output (along with the consequential loss of Grangemouth) are going to be catastrophic. Scotland needs time to find new jobs and new investment. They could also do with a government that has some idea of the implications this has for the Scottish tax base. This policy of preventing the granting of more licences for the North Sea is the sort of economic vandalism that Thatcher was rightly criticised for during the Howe monetarist period. It is criminally stupid and not a little vicious.
Just wait till GB Energy (headquartered in Aberdeen) gets going.
If they were being given the budget of £22bn that is being wasted on carbon capture I would be more hopeful.
There was a time which carbon capture could have been genuinely useful. It was a time when huge coal burning power stations were our major source of energy. But we closed down the last coal burning power station last week. Even our gas powered stations are playing a smaller role. This strikes me as a classic Westminster catastrophe. By the time they finally get it up and running the need for it has disappeared.
Scotland, to me, is facing an economic tsunami. We need help to rebalance our economy away from plentiful North Sea oil. There is a moral obligation on the UK Treasury, who benefitted so substantially during the peak years, to help. I am genuinely concerned we have a government in Holyrood who are simply failing to recognise the consequences because they want to pretend that we are viable and should be independent on the one hand and a government overly influenced by a fool like Ed Miliband on the other. Neither are recognising the problem let alone seeking to address it. I am seriously pessimistic about Scotland's economic future.
I’m struggling to recall those crazy, hazy days when you were anything other than seriously pessimistic..
We have been running a substantial trade deficit for well over 20 years. We got a lot of growth out of financial services, Edinburgh did particularly well, but that has been a lot more difficult since 2008. Our industrial base is continuing to decline. Our education system, which we once could be particularly proud of, is declining. Our public sector is too large and, frankly, too well paid sucking talent out of the economy. We need to do some seriously hard thinking about what our children and their children are going to do for a living.
So, what can we do?
We have some excellent Universities in St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde. We have some good ones in Dundee, Aberdeen and Stirling. They seem to me the obvious base for our future, just as Monasteries were in the middle ages .
Not only do they bring a lot of money into Scotland through foreign students but they also spin off some businesses and generate significant investment such as the Wellcome Trust in Dundee and Microsoft in Edinburgh. We need to do all we can to generate more such businesses. That will include enterprise zones with lower taxes, close liaison between what the Universities teach and what these businesses of tomorrow want, tax and investment incentives and we need to encourage those trained here to stay and create their businesses here. They have the capacity to replace those industrial estates around Aberdeen.
We still have strength in financial services but it is absolutely essential that that business remains closely tied with London to which it is back office and services.
We need to try and get our tax rates competitive with the rest of the UK, to be focused on our economy and close the door on constitutional uncertainty, indeed every kind of uncertainty that we can control.
But this is not likely to happen, hence my pessimism.
That can be done very quickly. In 2019 the govt tried to double the number of overseas students to 500k and has already succeeded. Just a shame they didn't seem to realise that they get classed as immigrants so we are reversing that policy at great harm to our balance of payments and university sector.
I had dinner with some professors at Edinburgh on Monday. They reported that the internal accounts were showing that the University was losing money on students from England paying £9250 a year, let alone the Scottish students who have approximately £7k paid on their behalf by the Scottish government. Post grad students were more profitable, especially the foreign students, but even they were struggling to cover their costs if they needed a lot of lab time.
The number of Chinese students has fallen sharply. Not sure if that indicates the state of the Chinese economy or other factors. The numbers from India and Nigeria are increasing but overall numbers have not fully recovered from Covid and the budgets are not looking great.
Yes: English universities are likewise losing money on home undergraduates. We lose money on government and charity-funded research. We make a bit of money on home postgrads, but the main source of income is overseas student fees. Thus, activity is becoming more focused on teaching overseas students. Chinese student numbers are in decline, seemingly because of the Chinese economy's slowdown, but they still make up a large proportion of overseas students.
The programmes I teach on have predominantly Chinese students, with much smaller numbers from Indonesia, India, Thailand, Europe, North America, sub-Saharan Africa, etc. This is good for the country's trade deficit as middle class Chinese families send their money to the UK, but maybe it would be better for the economy in general if there was more focus on teaching home students and/or research.
It’s like the League of Empire Loyalists here these past 24 hours.
If there's one thing anti-imperialists need to admit, it is that *how* an empire ends and dissolves matters. It is hard to do well, and in places can be disastrous (the Soviet/Russian empire ~1918 and ~1990; the Ottoman empire ~1920, especially with the experience of the Armenians and the Greek/Turkish population 'exchanges'; or the Indian partition in 1947.
This is another little piece of empire that may well be seen as having ended badly in the medium and long term.
Are you really comparing the recent agreement on Diego Garcia to the Partition of India and the Armenian genocide?!
I am pointing out that ending 'imperialism' can have very negative and long-lasting consequences. I think there are enough examples out there, including the ones I pointed out, to make that fairly unarguable.
That does not mean that imperialism should not end, especially if local populations want it; just that extreme care needs to be taken to ensure those negative consequences are minimised.
I don't think that this has been done here.
The whole place is going to be under water in 100 years time. Of course it will end badly.
No, it won't.
Th rate of sea level rise will be small, per actual year. Given the value of the base, it will be trivial to increase the height of atoll in the areas wanted. Indeed, this has already been done by the Americans on portions of the base, in the past.
See the wholesale construction/raising of islands by China.
The bit the Chagos islanders will live on - that's another matter. Why should the Mauritius bother? They will have the fishing rights.
That bit will sort itself out naturally. Coral atolls grow and shrink to match sealevel changes. They have to otherwise there wouldn't be any left.
That's assuming the reef is alive and growing. Uninhabited that might happen - human habitation tends to stop the process, pretty much.
There's also the matter of pace - depends on the speed of sea level rise. Coral is sloooooooooow.
Not as slow as sea level rise. Indeed averages about 4x faster.
Why bring facts to this?
But am I correct in saying that some coral atolls are being damaged not because of sea-level rise or climate change, but because of chemical composition of the water (or, more accurately, chemicals in the water)?
Here are some actual facts regarding the effect of climate change on coral reefs:
"Climate change is the greatest global threat to coral reef ecosystems. Scientific evidence now clearly indicates that the Earth's atmosphere and ocean are warming, and that these changes are primarily due to greenhouse gases derived from human activities.
As temperatures rise, mass coral bleaching events and infectious disease outbreaks are becoming more frequent. Additionally, carbon dioxide absorbed into the ocean from the atmosphere has already begun to reduce calcification rates in reef-building and reef-associated organisms by altering seawater chemistry through decreases in pH. This process is called ocean acidification.
Climate change will affect coral reef ecosystems, through sea level rise, changes to the frequency and intensity of tropical storms, and altered ocean circulation patterns. When combined, all of these impacts dramatically alter ecosystem function, as well as the goods and services coral reef ecosystems provide to people around the globe."
We have had both record highs for coral and record lows in recent years. The position is undoubtedly more volatile but it remains a fact that corals are currently at record highs and there are something like 30% more corals than there was 5 years ago.
From the article you cite:
"What we should take from this is the reef – the world’s largest living structure – is currently still able to recover from repeated shocks. But these shocks are getting worse and arriving more often, and future recovery is not guaranteed.
This is the rollercoaster ride the reef faces at just 1.1°C of warming. The pattern of disturbance and recovery is shifting – and not in the Reef’s favour."
Sure, its not entirely optimistic and they explain the very positive graphs may well have lags in them. I am not denying there are problems, not at all. Its just that it is a bit more complicated than some of the simplistic models might have led us to believe.
It's not optimistic at all, and I don't see how it could be read otherwise. Sure, there are a couple of positives, but the overall message, as set out clearly in the conclusion that I quoted, is the the outlook is poor for the coral reefs.
Jonathan Powell on Chagos: “These are very tiny islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean where no one actually goes. So I don’t think we should be too worried about losing that bit of territory. We’re probably losing more to tidal erosion in the East Coast than that.”
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft. We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...
No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
Sorry but that is rubbish. The cancellation of projects and the shifting of investment away from the North Sea has turned from a trickle into a tidal wave since Milliband got into power. I had a number of potential contracts where the companies were absolutely clear that they had their plans on hold until they saw if Labour won (and followed through on their promises) and which have now been cancelled. Serica, Hartshead, Harbour, Ithaca and Dana are all reducing North Sea investment and reinvesting in exploration and development elsewhere - many of them in Norway.
Prior to the election Labour had been claiming that increasing the windfall tax would push North Sea tax revenues up from the (OBR) predicted £8.6 billion a year in 2028 to something over £10 billion. The latest prediction based on what Labour has proposed/done since it came to power is that that revenue will fall to £2 billion a year at most by 2028. To be honest, the way companies are now fleeing the North Sea I think they will be lucky to make that.
I have had 2 cases in Aberdeen recently and was staying in an hotel in the outskirts near the airport. The number of businesses and industrial estates there is remarkable, there is nothing even close to it in Scotland. Bristow helicopters were flying out from early in the morning (too early for my taste anyway). There were a lot of large jets as well.
The glory days of Aberdeen and Union Street have long since past. John Lewis is gone and the shopping centres are half empty. But there is still a scarily long way to fall. The consequences for Scottish industrial output (along with the consequential loss of Grangemouth) are going to be catastrophic. Scotland needs time to find new jobs and new investment. They could also do with a government that has some idea of the implications this has for the Scottish tax base. This policy of preventing the granting of more licences for the North Sea is the sort of economic vandalism that Thatcher was rightly criticised for during the Howe monetarist period. It is criminally stupid and not a little vicious.
Just wait till GB Energy (headquartered in Aberdeen) gets going.
If they were being given the budget of £22bn that is being wasted on carbon capture I would be more hopeful.
There was a time which carbon capture could have been genuinely useful. It was a time when huge coal burning power stations were our major source of energy. But we closed down the last coal burning power station last week. Even our gas powered stations are playing a smaller role. This strikes me as a classic Westminster catastrophe. By the time they finally get it up and running the need for it has disappeared.
Scotland, to me, is facing an economic tsunami. We need help to rebalance our economy away from plentiful North Sea oil. There is a moral obligation on the UK Treasury, who benefitted so substantially during the peak years, to help. I am genuinely concerned we have a government in Holyrood who are simply failing to recognise the consequences because they want to pretend that we are viable and should be independent on the one hand and a government overly influenced by a fool like Ed Miliband on the other. Neither are recognising the problem let alone seeking to address it. I am seriously pessimistic about Scotland's economic future.
I’m struggling to recall those crazy, hazy days when you were anything other than seriously pessimistic..
We have been running a substantial trade deficit for well over 20 years. We got a lot of growth out of financial services, Edinburgh did particularly well, but that has been a lot more difficult since 2008. Our industrial base is continuing to decline. Our education system, which we once could be particularly proud of, is declining. Our public sector is too large and, frankly, too well paid sucking talent out of the economy. We need to do some seriously hard thinking about what our children and their children are going to do for a living.
So, what can we do?
We have some excellent Universities in St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde. We have some good ones in Dundee, Aberdeen and Stirling. They seem to me the obvious base for our future, just as Monasteries were in the middle ages .
Not only do they bring a lot of money into Scotland through foreign students but they also spin off some businesses and generate significant investment such as the Wellcome Trust in Dundee and Microsoft in Edinburgh. We need to do all we can to generate more such businesses. That will include enterprise zones with lower taxes, close liaison between what the Universities teach and what these businesses of tomorrow want, tax and investment incentives and we need to encourage those trained here to stay and create their businesses here. They have the capacity to replace those industrial estates around Aberdeen.
We still have strength in financial services but it is absolutely essential that that business remains closely tied with London to which it is back office and services.
We need to try and get our tax rates competitive with the rest of the UK, to be focused on our economy and close the door on constitutional uncertainty, indeed every kind of uncertainty that we can control.
But this is not likely to happen, hence my pessimism.
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft. We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...
No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
Sorry but that is rubbish. The cancellation of projects and the shifting of investment away from the North Sea has turned from a trickle into a tidal wave since Milliband got into power. I had a number of potential contracts where the companies were absolutely clear that they had their plans on hold until they saw if Labour won (and followed through on their promises) and which have now been cancelled. Serica, Hartshead, Harbour, Ithaca and Dana are all reducing North Sea investment and reinvesting in exploration and development elsewhere - many of them in Norway.
Prior to the election Labour had been claiming that increasing the windfall tax would push North Sea tax revenues up from the (OBR) predicted £8.6 billion a year in 2028 to something over £10 billion. The latest prediction based on what Labour has proposed/done since it came to power is that that revenue will fall to £2 billion a year at most by 2028. To be honest, the way companies are now fleeing the North Sea I think they will be lucky to make that.
This is inevitable. Even with new licenses, NSTA are projecting a fall of 95% in production by 2050 (compared with 97% under Miliband).
That's absolutely brutal and I entirely agree that this is going to cause problems for the Treasury and for the economy in the NE of Scotland. Just the idea that it's down to Ed Miliband seems a bit overblown and melodramatic.
Credit to Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce though - some of the best PR in ages with "100 days to save 100,000 jobs" .
Well no it wasn't inevitable. The OBR numbers show that the decision will cost the UK at least £8 billion a year and the whole point of continuing was to help fund the transiiton. Turning that tap off in the way Miliband is proposing will do nothing to stop hydrocarbon consumption (we will just import it) will lose the Treasury billions of pounds, will cost upwards of 150,000 jobs and will cripple our petrochemical industry (all those plastics, lubricants and coolants you need to make and drive electric cars). There is simply no upside to it no matter what perspective you take.
Hang on, the OBR stated that the fall to £2 billion would occur in their report from April '24 - that's before Miliband got in.
No they didn't. Their forecast for 2028 was £8.6 billion. Of course eventually this will all end. At that point it will be a big negative number as decommissioning costs kick in. But just because we are all going to die some day doesn't mean I am in favour of committing suicide now.
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft. We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...
No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
Sorry but that is rubbish. The cancellation of projects and the shifting of investment away from the North Sea has turned from a trickle into a tidal wave since Milliband got into power. I had a number of potential contracts where the companies were absolutely clear that they had their plans on hold until they saw if Labour won (and followed through on their promises) and which have now been cancelled. Serica, Hartshead, Harbour, Ithaca and Dana are all reducing North Sea investment and reinvesting in exploration and development elsewhere - many of them in Norway.
Prior to the election Labour had been claiming that increasing the windfall tax would push North Sea tax revenues up from the (OBR) predicted £8.6 billion a year in 2028 to something over £10 billion. The latest prediction based on what Labour has proposed/done since it came to power is that that revenue will fall to £2 billion a year at most by 2028. To be honest, the way companies are now fleeing the North Sea I think they will be lucky to make that.
This is inevitable. Even with new licenses, NSTA are projecting a fall of 95% in production by 2050 (compared with 97% under Miliband).
That's absolutely brutal and I entirely agree that this is going to cause problems for the Treasury and for the economy in the NE of Scotland. Just the idea that it's down to Ed Miliband seems a bit overblown and melodramatic.
Credit to Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce though - some of the best PR in ages with "100 days to save 100,000 jobs" .
Well no it wasn't inevitable. The OBR numbers show that the decision will cost the UK at least £8 billion a year and the whole point of continuing was to help fund the transiiton. Turning that tap off in the way Miliband is proposing will do nothing to stop hydrocarbon consumption (we will just import it) will lose the Treasury billions of pounds, will cost upwards of 150,000 jobs and will cripple our petrochemical industry (all those plastics, lubricants and coolants you need to make and drive electric cars). There is simply no upside to it no matter what perspective you take.
I have to agree.
While I'm in favour of phasing out oil consumption as rapidly as possible, stopping production while we're still consuming isn't very bright.
In the list of most visited websites last month, Rightmove ranked above PornHub, suggesting the British are (marginally) more interested in property smut than the literal kind.
I see that @JonO is running for Elmbridge Council next week. Best of luck.
We have no fewer than 38 by-elections over the next fortnight. I’d expect a lot of Labour losses.
How many Reform UK gains? Will Reform UK even stand that many candidates? I think that’s an interesting question: can RefUK transform itself into a traditional party that wins seats? That will be a big determiner of the next general election result.
Instead of losing their majority on Dundee cit coulcil to Labour, The SNP actually increased it by one seat. Have we passed peak Labour in Scotland?
That's just a result of going from a multimember election to a single member by-election. The SNP vote share was down and the Labour vote share up.
Nevertheless Sarwar & co not really managing expectations on winning both seats. Blaming the WFP and freebies for the Labour great and good apparently, which of course is nothing to do with SLab.
Perhaps more interesting is the numbers of voters that did not transfer, unionist tactical voting blows hot and cold it seems.
I see that @JonO is running for Elmbridge Council next week. Best of luck.
We have no fewer than 38 by-elections over the next fortnight. I’d expect a lot of Labour losses.
How many Reform UK gains? Will Reform UK even stand that many candidates? I think that’s an interesting question: can RefUK transform itself into a traditional party that wins seats? That will be a big determiner of the next general election result.
Instead of losing their majority on Dundee cit coulcil to Labour, The SNP actually increased it by one seat. Have we passed peak Labour in Scotland?
That's just a result of going from a multimember election to a single member by-election. The SNP vote share was down and the Labour vote share up.
3% and 7% swings SNP -> SLab, down from the GE swing of 16% certainly looks like a decline.
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft. We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...
No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
Sorry but that is rubbish. The cancellation of projects and the shifting of investment away from the North Sea has turned from a trickle into a tidal wave since Milliband got into power. I had a number of potential contracts where the companies were absolutely clear that they had their plans on hold until they saw if Labour won (and followed through on their promises) and which have now been cancelled. Serica, Hartshead, Harbour, Ithaca and Dana are all reducing North Sea investment and reinvesting in exploration and development elsewhere - many of them in Norway.
Prior to the election Labour had been claiming that increasing the windfall tax would push North Sea tax revenues up from the (OBR) predicted £8.6 billion a year in 2028 to something over £10 billion. The latest prediction based on what Labour has proposed/done since it came to power is that that revenue will fall to £2 billion a year at most by 2028. To be honest, the way companies are now fleeing the North Sea I think they will be lucky to make that.
This is inevitable. Even with new licenses, NSTA are projecting a fall of 95% in production by 2050 (compared with 97% under Miliband).
That's absolutely brutal and I entirely agree that this is going to cause problems for the Treasury and for the economy in the NE of Scotland. Just the idea that it's down to Ed Miliband seems a bit overblown and melodramatic.
Credit to Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce though - some of the best PR in ages with "100 days to save 100,000 jobs" .
Well no it wasn't inevitable. The OBR numbers show that the decision will cost the UK at least £8 billion a year and the whole point of continuing was to help fund the transiiton. Turning that tap off in the way Miliband is proposing will do nothing to stop hydrocarbon consumption (we will just import it) will lose the Treasury billions of pounds, will cost upwards of 150,000 jobs and will cripple our petrochemical industry (all those plastics, lubricants and coolants you need to make and drive electric cars). There is simply no upside to it no matter what perspective you take.
Hang on, the OBR stated that the fall to £2 billion would occur in their report from April '24 - that's before Miliband got in.
No they didn't. Their forecast for 2028 was £8.6 billion. Of course eventually this will all end. At that point it will be a big negative number as decommissioning costs kick in. But just because we are all going to die some day doesn't mean I am in favour of committing suicide now.
£2.2 billion, 2028-29. Published March '24.
The £8.6 billion is an average, 2022 - 2027, from their March '23 forecast. Influenced by the £10.6 billion in 23/24.
The average for the 6 years up to 2021-22 was just £0.8 billion, so Labour are actually going to do much better out of O&G than the Conservatives.
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
There has been discussion here about how the unpopularity of Lab and Con could see the LibDems, Greens and Reform UK making big gains at the next general election. What this (limited) set of local election results suggests is that the traditional parties (Con, LibDem, SNP) are usually the best poised to take advantage of any Labour decline.
One gain is good news for Reform UK. That’s a 4% increase in their total councillor count! But they’ve got a long journey ahead of them to become the sort of on-the-ground campaigning party that can turn votes into seats under FPTP.
Dozens of San Fernando Valley white supremacist gang members charged in federal indictment, DOJ says https://abc7.com/post/dozens-san-fernando-valley-white-supremacist-gang-members-arrested-charged-federal-indictment/15385105/ Forty-two members of what prosecutors call a San Fernando Valley-based white supremacist gang have been arrested in connection with a federal indictment unsealed Wednesday alleging a years-long criminal operation that included drug trafficking, weapons violations and COVID-19 and loan fraud.
According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, 29 people named in the indictment were arrested Wednesday in a series of raids involving the Los Angeles Police Department and other agencies. Thirteen other defendants were already in custody, prosecutors said.
Prosecutors said the gang has been allied with the Aryan Brotherhood and Mexican Mafia, and its members use "Nazi tattoos, graffiti and iconography to indicate their violent white supremacy extremist ideology."..
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
There has been discussion here about how the unpopularity of Lab and Con could see the LibDems, Greens and Reform UK making big gains at the next general election. What this (limited) set of local election results suggests is that the traditional parties (Con, LibDem, SNP) are usually the best poised to take advantage of any Labour decline.
One gain is good news for Reform UK. That’s a 4% increase in their total councillor count! But they’ve got a long journey ahead of them to become the sort of on-the-ground campaigning party that can turn votes into seats under FPTP.
And Reform had something of a head start in Blackpool anyway; presumably they managed to accumulate a bit of a ground force during the by-election.
The other story from pretty much all the recent by-elections is how low the turnouts have been. I mean, properly low. The winning post is much less far down the track than it normally is. That's both an opportunity and a problem for all parties.
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft. We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...
No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
Sorry but that is rubbish. The cancellation of projects and the shifting of investment away from the North Sea has turned from a trickle into a tidal wave since Milliband got into power. I had a number of potential contracts where the companies were absolutely clear that they had their plans on hold until they saw if Labour won (and followed through on their promises) and which have now been cancelled. Serica, Hartshead, Harbour, Ithaca and Dana are all reducing North Sea investment and reinvesting in exploration and development elsewhere - many of them in Norway.
Prior to the election Labour had been claiming that increasing the windfall tax would push North Sea tax revenues up from the (OBR) predicted £8.6 billion a year in 2028 to something over £10 billion. The latest prediction based on what Labour has proposed/done since it came to power is that that revenue will fall to £2 billion a year at most by 2028. To be honest, the way companies are now fleeing the North Sea I think they will be lucky to make that.
I have had 2 cases in Aberdeen recently and was staying in an hotel in the outskirts near the airport. The number of businesses and industrial estates there is remarkable, there is nothing even close to it in Scotland. Bristow helicopters were flying out from early in the morning (too early for my taste anyway). There were a lot of large jets as well.
The glory days of Aberdeen and Union Street have long since past. John Lewis is gone and the shopping centres are half empty. But there is still a scarily long way to fall. The consequences for Scottish industrial output (along with the consequential loss of Grangemouth) are going to be catastrophic. Scotland needs time to find new jobs and new investment. They could also do with a government that has some idea of the implications this has for the Scottish tax base. This policy of preventing the granting of more licences for the North Sea is the sort of economic vandalism that Thatcher was rightly criticised for during the Howe monetarist period. It is criminally stupid and not a little vicious.
Just wait till GB Energy (headquartered in Aberdeen) gets going.
If they were being given the budget of £22bn that is being wasted on carbon capture I would be more hopeful.
There was a time which carbon capture could have been genuinely useful. It was a time when huge coal burning power stations were our major source of energy. But we closed down the last coal burning power station last week. Even our gas powered stations are playing a smaller role. This strikes me as a classic Westminster catastrophe. By the time they finally get it up and running the need for it has disappeared.
Scotland, to me, is facing an economic tsunami. We need help to rebalance our economy away from plentiful North Sea oil. There is a moral obligation on the UK Treasury, who benefitted so substantially during the peak years, to help. I am genuinely concerned we have a government in Holyrood who are simply failing to recognise the consequences because they want to pretend that we are viable and should be independent on the one hand and a government overly influenced by a fool like Ed Miliband on the other. Neither are recognising the problem let alone seeking to address it. I am seriously pessimistic about Scotland's economic future.
I’m struggling to recall those crazy, hazy days when you were anything other than seriously pessimistic..
We have been running a substantial trade deficit for well over 20 years. We got a lot of growth out of financial services, Edinburgh did particularly well, but that has been a lot more difficult since 2008. Our industrial base is continuing to decline. Our education system, which we once could be particularly proud of, is declining. Our public sector is too large and, frankly, too well paid sucking talent out of the economy. We need to do some seriously hard thinking about what our children and their children are going to do for a living.
So, what can we do?
We have some excellent Universities in St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde. We have some good ones in Dundee, Aberdeen and Stirling. They seem to me the obvious base for our future, just as Monasteries were in the middle ages .
Not only do they bring a lot of money into Scotland through foreign students but they also spin off some businesses and generate significant investment such as the Wellcome Trust in Dundee and Microsoft in Edinburgh. We need to do all we can to generate more such businesses. That will include enterprise zones with lower taxes, close liaison between what the Universities teach and what these businesses of tomorrow want, tax and investment incentives and we need to encourage those trained here to stay and create their businesses here. They have the capacity to replace those industrial estates around Aberdeen.
We still have strength in financial services but it is absolutely essential that that business remains closely tied with London to which it is back office and services.
We need to try and get our tax rates competitive with the rest of the UK, to be focused on our economy and close the door on constitutional uncertainty, indeed every kind of uncertainty that we can control.
But this is not likely to happen, hence my pessimism.
Universities are doomed. Sorry
No. Universities will adapt. Universities do more than what you think they do (as an English graduate)
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
The next exciting one is going to be forcing landlords to upgrade all properties to an EPC rating of C by 2030.
Reading on various forums how some older buildings will cost £4000-14000 to bring them up to code (with a few being utterly impossible), while saving tenants less than £100 a year on their energy bills.
The landlords that stay in the market will pass the costs on to tenants. Rents go up. The landlords that leave the market will reduce the supply of houses for rent. Again, rents go up.
Have to be in Pristina Kosovo ASAP for bizarre Gazette assignment visiting Europe’s cheapest and then most expensive cities (Geneva) with the same budget
Missed flight to Pristina last night due to wizzair being wankers. Only choice (if I am to make it all work) was to get absurd early flight to Tirana then pray I can get a bus from Tirana to Pristina today then fly back Sunday at about midnight then fly to Geneva a few hours later
Albanian Taxi is stuck in rain. Heavy storms rage over the communist wedding cake citadels. Reggaeton
I highly recommend the Greek South of Albania for beauty (don't call it that, there, obviously).
Beautiful landscape around Himare and Dhermi particularly, very Greek in some ways, and with a lot of Greek speakers. Arguably that coastal strip right up to Himare and Dherrni should have been given to Greece, and nearly was in the 'twenties, and some parts just South of the Greek border should have been in Albania ; but the border is set now.
That's not to say that there isn't also beautiful scenery to seen further north, well away from the Greek areas, and around their lakes. Fascinatingly paradoxical country, when I saw it, awful and wonderful.
Have to be in Pristina ASAP for bizarre Gazette assignment visiting Europe’s cheapest and then most expensive cities (Geneva) with the same budget
Missed flight to Pristina last night due to wizzair being wankers. Only choice (if I am to make it all work) was to get absurd early flight to Tirana then pray I can get a bus from Tirana to Pristina today then fly back Sunday at about midnight then fly to Geneva a few hours later
Albanian Taxi is stuck in rain. Heavy storms rage over the communist wedding cake citadels. Reggaeton
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
Governments are going to find that it's much easier to get people to play along if they offer carrots rather than sticks. The only reason for a lot of EV purchases now is that the BIK rules make them very attractive to have as a company car (carrot).
Trying to get the public onboard with buying EVs by massive fines on the things they want to buy (stick) is going to go down like a cup of cold sick (and the public will know, because you can be sure the dealerships will tell them).
It's also going to remain difficult to shift them to the public all the while the residuals are rubbish (which will remain the case at least until technological development plateaus again - last years model will be worth even less than it otherwise would be if this years model is better/cheaper).
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft. We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...
No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
Sorry but that is rubbish. The cancellation of projects and the shifting of investment away from the North Sea has turned from a trickle into a tidal wave since Milliband got into power. I had a number of potential contracts where the companies were absolutely clear that they had their plans on hold until they saw if Labour won (and followed through on their promises) and which have now been cancelled. Serica, Hartshead, Harbour, Ithaca and Dana are all reducing North Sea investment and reinvesting in exploration and development elsewhere - many of them in Norway.
Prior to the election Labour had been claiming that increasing the windfall tax would push North Sea tax revenues up from the (OBR) predicted £8.6 billion a year in 2028 to something over £10 billion. The latest prediction based on what Labour has proposed/done since it came to power is that that revenue will fall to £2 billion a year at most by 2028. To be honest, the way companies are now fleeing the North Sea I think they will be lucky to make that.
I have had 2 cases in Aberdeen recently and was staying in an hotel in the outskirts near the airport. The number of businesses and industrial estates there is remarkable, there is nothing even close to it in Scotland. Bristow helicopters were flying out from early in the morning (too early for my taste anyway). There were a lot of large jets as well.
The glory days of Aberdeen and Union Street have long since past. John Lewis is gone and the shopping centres are half empty. But there is still a scarily long way to fall. The consequences for Scottish industrial output (along with the consequential loss of Grangemouth) are going to be catastrophic. Scotland needs time to find new jobs and new investment. They could also do with a government that has some idea of the implications this has for the Scottish tax base. This policy of preventing the granting of more licences for the North Sea is the sort of economic vandalism that Thatcher was rightly criticised for during the Howe monetarist period. It is criminally stupid and not a little vicious.
Just wait till GB Energy (headquartered in Aberdeen) gets going.
If they were being given the budget of £22bn that is being wasted on carbon capture I would be more hopeful.
There was a time which carbon capture could have been genuinely useful. It was a time when huge coal burning power stations were our major source of energy. But we closed down the last coal burning power station last week. Even our gas powered stations are playing a smaller role. This strikes me as a classic Westminster catastrophe. By the time they finally get it up and running the need for it has disappeared.
Scotland, to me, is facing an economic tsunami. We need help to rebalance our economy away from plentiful North Sea oil. There is a moral obligation on the UK Treasury, who benefitted so substantially during the peak years, to help. I am genuinely concerned we have a government in Holyrood who are simply failing to recognise the consequences because they want to pretend that we are viable and should be independent on the one hand and a government overly influenced by a fool like Ed Miliband on the other. Neither are recognising the problem let alone seeking to address it. I am seriously pessimistic about Scotland's economic future.
I’m struggling to recall those crazy, hazy days when you were anything other than seriously pessimistic..
We have been running a substantial trade deficit for well over 20 years. We got a lot of growth out of financial services, Edinburgh did particularly well, but that has been a lot more difficult since 2008. Our industrial base is continuing to decline. Our education system, which we once could be particularly proud of, is declining. Our public sector is too large and, frankly, too well paid sucking talent out of the economy. We need to do some seriously hard thinking about what our children and their children are going to do for a living.
So, what can we do?
We have some excellent Universities in St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde. We have some good ones in Dundee, Aberdeen and Stirling. They seem to me the obvious base for our future, just as Monasteries were in the middle ages .
Not only do they bring a lot of money into Scotland through foreign students but they also spin off some businesses and generate significant investment such as the Wellcome Trust in Dundee and Microsoft in Edinburgh. We need to do all we can to generate more such businesses. That will include enterprise zones with lower taxes, close liaison between what the Universities teach and what these businesses of tomorrow want, tax and investment incentives and we need to encourage those trained here to stay and create their businesses here. They have the capacity to replace those industrial estates around Aberdeen.
We still have strength in financial services but it is absolutely essential that that business remains closely tied with London to which it is back office and services.
We need to try and get our tax rates competitive with the rest of the UK, to be focused on our economy and close the door on constitutional uncertainty, indeed every kind of uncertainty that we can control.
But this is not likely to happen, hence my pessimism.
Universities are doomed. Sorry
With a bit of luck universities will be well placed to return to sanity rather than being doomed. They can be very good at two things: really demanding vocational and quasi vocational training for really demanding careers - and they have been doing this since about 1100 with some success both in outcomes and in changing with the times.
They are also good at real rigorous academia as an exercise in being a civilized nation in a world in need of it, and world class research with both practical real world applications, and the good in itself of adding to the world's stock of reliable knowledge.
They are less good at being places to keep 18-22 year olds off the streets and out of the employment market and giving lazier schools an excuse for not doing decent careers advice, but hopefully that's just a passing fad which will price itself out of usefulness.
There has been discussion here about how the unpopularity of Lab and Con could see the LibDems, Greens and Reform UK making big gains at the next general election. What this (limited) set of local election results suggests is that the traditional parties (Con, LibDem, SNP) are usually the best poised to take advantage of any Labour decline.
One gain is good news for Reform UK. That’s a 4% increase in their total councillor count! But they’ve got a long journey ahead of them to become the sort of on-the-ground campaigning party that can turn votes into seats under FPTP.
And Reform had something of a head start in Blackpool anyway; presumably they managed to accumulate a bit of a ground force during the by-election.
The other story from pretty much all the recent by-elections is how low the turnouts have been. I mean, properly low. The winning post is much less far down the track than it normally is. That's both an opportunity and a problem for all parties.
Yes. To use a cliché, I think this is largely Labour voters staying at home rather than deserting the party.
Local by-elections often don’t track polling or other elections… but they often do!
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
The next exciting one is going to be forcing landlords to upgrade all properties to an EPC rating of C by 2030.
Reading on various forums how some older buildings will cost £4000-14000 to bring them up to code (with a few being utterly impossible), while saving tenants less than £100 a year on their energy bills.
The landlords that stay in the market will pass the costs on to tenants. Rents go up. The landlords that leave the market will reduce the supply of houses for rent. Again, rents go up.
Struggling to see who the policy benefits.
Everyone in time if it leads to more energy efficient buildings?
Has the French construction sector hit rock bottom? The French construction sector remains in deep crisis, as reflected in the HCOB PMI for September, which dropped to 37.9 points – the lowest level in nearly a decade, excluding the COVID-19 pandemic period. The index for civil engineering, in particular, saw a sharp decline compared to the previous month, with the steepest contraction in activity once again occurring in the residential property market. In light of this downturn, the question arises whether the sector has finally reached its lowest point.
The French construction sector continues to suffer from rising prices. Although the pace of price increases slowed somewhat in September, input costs are still growing despite historically weak demand. A small silver lining is the decline in subcontractor prices, likely due to construction companies having sharply reduced their reliance on subcontractors by the end of the third quarter.
The outlook for the French construction sector remains bleak. Order intake continues to shrink significantly, and forecasts for future activity are equally pessimistic. Many construction companies have expressed concerns about the weak demand environment, leading to a further wave of layoffs. A recovery in the sector seems likely only through substantial interest rate cuts in the Eurozone, but hopes for such action remain limited at present.
UK construction companies indicated a decisive improvement in output growth momentum during September, driven by faster upturns across all three major categories of activity.
A combination of lower interest rates, domestic economic stability and strong pipelines of infrastructure work have helped to boost order books in recent months.
New project starts contributed to a moderate expansion of employment numbers and a faster rise in purchasing activity across the construction sector in September. However, greater demand for raw materials and the pass-through of higher wages by suppliers led to the steepest increase in input costs for 16 months.
Business optimism edged down to the lowest since April, but remained much higher than the low point seen last October. Survey respondents cited rising sales enquires since the general election, as well as lower borrowing costs and the potential for stronger house building demand as factors supporting business activity expectations in September.
I think the TLDR is that the public are profuoundly unkeen on the government, but perhaps dislike them less than the alternatives.
This isnt really unsurprising. People don't like to think they have made a bad choice. It takes time. But this is supposed to be the honeymoon. A government only a few months old looks like it is on the rocks. Utterly bizarre. It isnt just PBcrazies noticing that this isnt normal.
Meh. Let's wait till Yougov and the other established pollsters are publishing VI again.
With an approval rating of 18%, and falling, I'd be surprised if Labour have a lead, by the time Yougov start doing voting intentions.
A more skilled person than myself could look at the corellation between approval ratings and VI of a given pollster and do a reasonable extrapolation of VI from it.
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft. We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...
No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
Sorry but that is rubbish. The cancellation of projects and the shifting of investment away from the North Sea has turned from a trickle into a tidal wave since Milliband got into power. I had a number of potential contracts where the companies were absolutely clear that they had their plans on hold until they saw if Labour won (and followed through on their promises) and which have now been cancelled. Serica, Hartshead, Harbour, Ithaca and Dana are all reducing North Sea investment and reinvesting in exploration and development elsewhere - many of them in Norway.
Prior to the election Labour had been claiming that increasing the windfall tax would push North Sea tax revenues up from the (OBR) predicted £8.6 billion a year in 2028 to something over £10 billion. The latest prediction based on what Labour has proposed/done since it came to power is that that revenue will fall to £2 billion a year at most by 2028. To be honest, the way companies are now fleeing the North Sea I think they will be lucky to make that.
I have had 2 cases in Aberdeen recently and was staying in an hotel in the outskirts near the airport. The number of businesses and industrial estates there is remarkable, there is nothing even close to it in Scotland. Bristow helicopters were flying out from early in the morning (too early for my taste anyway). There were a lot of large jets as well.
The glory days of Aberdeen and Union Street have long since past. John Lewis is gone and the shopping centres are half empty. But there is still a scarily long way to fall. The consequences for Scottish industrial output (along with the consequential loss of Grangemouth) are going to be catastrophic. Scotland needs time to find new jobs and new investment. They could also do with a government that has some idea of the implications this has for the Scottish tax base. This policy of preventing the granting of more licences for the North Sea is the sort of economic vandalism that Thatcher was rightly criticised for during the Howe monetarist period. It is criminally stupid and not a little vicious.
Just wait till GB Energy (headquartered in Aberdeen) gets going.
If they were being given the budget of £22bn that is being wasted on carbon capture I would be more hopeful.
There was a time which carbon capture could have been genuinely useful. It was a time when huge coal burning power stations were our major source of energy. But we closed down the last coal burning power station last week. Even our gas powered stations are playing a smaller role. This strikes me as a classic Westminster catastrophe. By the time they finally get it up and running the need for it has disappeared.
Scotland, to me, is facing an economic tsunami. We need help to rebalance our economy away from plentiful North Sea oil. There is a moral obligation on the UK Treasury, who benefitted so substantially during the peak years, to help. I am genuinely concerned we have a government in Holyrood who are simply failing to recognise the consequences because they want to pretend that we are viable and should be independent on the one hand and a government overly influenced by a fool like Ed Miliband on the other. Neither are recognising the problem let alone seeking to address it. I am seriously pessimistic about Scotland's economic future.
I’m struggling to recall those crazy, hazy days when you were anything other than seriously pessimistic..
We have been running a substantial trade deficit for well over 20 years. We got a lot of growth out of financial services, Edinburgh did particularly well, but that has been a lot more difficult since 2008. Our industrial base is continuing to decline. Our education system, which we once could be particularly proud of, is declining. Our public sector is too large and, frankly, too well paid sucking talent out of the economy. We need to do some seriously hard thinking about what our children and their children are going to do for a living.
So, what can we do?
We have some excellent Universities in St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde. We have some good ones in Dundee, Aberdeen and Stirling. They seem to me the obvious base for our future, just as Monasteries were in the middle ages .
Not only do they bring a lot of money into Scotland through foreign students but they also spin off some businesses and generate significant investment such as the Wellcome Trust in Dundee and Microsoft in Edinburgh. We need to do all we can to generate more such businesses. That will include enterprise zones with lower taxes, close liaison between what the Universities teach and what these businesses of tomorrow want, tax and investment incentives and we need to encourage those trained here to stay and create their businesses here. They have the capacity to replace those industrial estates around Aberdeen.
We still have strength in financial services but it is absolutely essential that that business remains closely tied with London to which it is back office and services.
We need to try and get our tax rates competitive with the rest of the UK, to be focused on our economy and close the door on constitutional uncertainty, indeed every kind of uncertainty that we can control.
But this is not likely to happen, hence my pessimism.
Universities are doomed. Sorry
With a bit of luck universities will be well placed to return to sanity rather than being doomed. They can be very good at two things: really demanding vocational and quasi vocational training for really demanding careers - and they have been doing this since about 1100 with some success both in outcomes and in changing with the times.
They are also good at real rigorous academia as an exercise in being a civilized nation in a world in need of it, and world class research with both practical real world applications, and the good in itself of adding to the world's stock of reliable knowledge.
They are less good at being places to keep 18-22 year olds off the streets and out of the employment market and giving lazier schools an excuse for not doing decent careers advice, but hopefully that's just a passing fad which will price itself out of usefulness.
A university has been doing that since about 1100. A plural pronoun is not really appropriate for another century. Just to be pedantic…
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
The next exciting one is going to be forcing landlords to upgrade all properties to an EPC rating of C by 2030.
Reading on various forums how some older buildings will cost £4000-14000 to bring them up to code (with a few being utterly impossible), while saving tenants less than £100 a year on their energy bills.
The landlords that stay in the market will pass the costs on to tenants. Rents go up. The landlords that leave the market will reduce the supply of houses for rent. Again, rents go up.
Struggling to see who the policy benefits.
Everyone in time if it leads to more energy efficient buildings?
Cost benefit analysis on 14k to save sub 100 a year? It would take 140 years to pay back the investment...
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
The next exciting one is going to be forcing landlords to upgrade all properties to an EPC rating of C by 2030.
Reading on various forums how some older buildings will cost £4000-14000 to bring them up to code (with a few being utterly impossible), while saving tenants less than £100 a year on their energy bills.
The landlords that stay in the market will pass the costs on to tenants. Rents go up. The landlords that leave the market will reduce the supply of houses for rent. Again, rents go up.
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
Governments are going to find that it's much easier to get people to play along if they offer carrots rather than sticks. The only reason for a lot of EV purchases now is that the BIK rules make them very attractive to have as a company car (carrot).
Trying to get the public onboard with buying EVs by massive fines on the things they want to buy (stick) is going to go down like a cup of cold sick (and the public will know, because you can be sure the dealerships will tell them).
It's also going to remain difficult to shift them to the public all the while the residuals are rubbish (which will remain the case at least until technological development plateaus again - last years model will be worth even less than it otherwise would be if this years model is better/cheaper).
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
The next exciting one is going to be forcing landlords to upgrade all properties to an EPC rating of C by 2030.
Reading on various forums how some older buildings will cost £4000-14000 to bring them up to code (with a few being utterly impossible), while saving tenants less than £100 a year on their energy bills.
The landlords that stay in the market will pass the costs on to tenants. Rents go up. The landlords that leave the market will reduce the supply of houses for rent. Again, rents go up.
Struggling to see who the policy benefits.
Everyone in time if it leads to more energy efficient buildings?
Cost benefit analysis on 14k to save sub 100 a year? It would take 140 years to pay back the investment...
That presumes that figures from “various forums” are accurate.
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft. We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...
No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
Sorry but that is rubbish. The cancellation of projects and the shifting of investment away from the North Sea has turned from a trickle into a tidal wave since Milliband got into power. I had a number of potential contracts where the companies were absolutely clear that they had their plans on hold until they saw if Labour won (and followed through on their promises) and which have now been cancelled. Serica, Hartshead, Harbour, Ithaca and Dana are all reducing North Sea investment and reinvesting in exploration and development elsewhere - many of them in Norway.
Prior to the election Labour had been claiming that increasing the windfall tax would push North Sea tax revenues up from the (OBR) predicted £8.6 billion a year in 2028 to something over £10 billion. The latest prediction based on what Labour has proposed/done since it came to power is that that revenue will fall to £2 billion a year at most by 2028. To be honest, the way companies are now fleeing the North Sea I think they will be lucky to make that.
I have had 2 cases in Aberdeen recently and was staying in an hotel in the outskirts near the airport. The number of businesses and industrial estates there is remarkable, there is nothing even close to it in Scotland. Bristow helicopters were flying out from early in the morning (too early for my taste anyway). There were a lot of large jets as well.
The glory days of Aberdeen and Union Street have long since past. John Lewis is gone and the shopping centres are half empty. But there is still a scarily long way to fall. The consequences for Scottish industrial output (along with the consequential loss of Grangemouth) are going to be catastrophic. Scotland needs time to find new jobs and new investment. They could also do with a government that has some idea of the implications this has for the Scottish tax base. This policy of preventing the granting of more licences for the North Sea is the sort of economic vandalism that Thatcher was rightly criticised for during the Howe monetarist period. It is criminally stupid and not a little vicious.
Just wait till GB Energy (headquartered in Aberdeen) gets going.
If they were being given the budget of £22bn that is being wasted on carbon capture I would be more hopeful.
There was a time which carbon capture could have been genuinely useful. It was a time when huge coal burning power stations were our major source of energy. But we closed down the last coal burning power station last week. Even our gas powered stations are playing a smaller role. This strikes me as a classic Westminster catastrophe. By the time they finally get it up and running the need for it has disappeared.
Scotland, to me, is facing an economic tsunami. We need help to rebalance our economy away from plentiful North Sea oil. There is a moral obligation on the UK Treasury, who benefitted so substantially during the peak years, to help. I am genuinely concerned we have a government in Holyrood who are simply failing to recognise the consequences because they want to pretend that we are viable and should be independent on the one hand and a government overly influenced by a fool like Ed Miliband on the other. Neither are recognising the problem let alone seeking to address it. I am seriously pessimistic about Scotland's economic future.
I’m struggling to recall those crazy, hazy days when you were anything other than seriously pessimistic..
We have been running a substantial trade deficit for well over 20 years. We got a lot of growth out of financial services, Edinburgh did particularly well, but that has been a lot more difficult since 2008. Our industrial base is continuing to decline. Our education system, which we once could be particularly proud of, is declining. Our public sector is too large and, frankly, too well paid sucking talent out of the economy. We need to do some seriously hard thinking about what our children and their children are going to do for a living.
So, what can we do?
We have some excellent Universities in St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde. We have some good ones in Dundee, Aberdeen and Stirling. They seem to me the obvious base for our future, just as Monasteries were in the middle ages .
Not only do they bring a lot of money into Scotland through foreign students but they also spin off some businesses and generate significant investment such as the Wellcome Trust in Dundee and Microsoft in Edinburgh. We need to do all we can to generate more such businesses. That will include enterprise zones with lower taxes, close liaison between what the Universities teach and what these businesses of tomorrow want, tax and investment incentives and we need to encourage those trained here to stay and create their businesses here. They have the capacity to replace those industrial estates around Aberdeen.
We still have strength in financial services but it is absolutely essential that that business remains closely tied with London to which it is back office and services.
We need to try and get our tax rates competitive with the rest of the UK, to be focused on our economy and close the door on constitutional uncertainty, indeed every kind of uncertainty that we can control.
But this is not likely to happen, hence my pessimism.
Universities are doomed. Sorry
With a bit of luck universities will be well placed to return to sanity rather than being doomed. They can be very good at two things: really demanding vocational and quasi vocational training for really demanding careers - and they have been doing this since about 1100 with some success both in outcomes and in changing with the times.
They are also good at real rigorous academia as an exercise in being a civilized nation in a world in need of it, and world class research with both practical real world applications, and the good in itself of adding to the world's stock of reliable knowledge.
They are less good at being places to keep 18-22 year olds off the streets and out of the employment market and giving lazier schools an excuse for not doing decent careers advice, but hopefully that's just a passing fad which will price itself out of usefulness.
A university has been doing that since about 1100. A plural pronoun is not really appropriate for another century. Just to be pedantic…
I had Bologna and Oxford in mind. Keele was much later.
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
The next exciting one is going to be forcing landlords to upgrade all properties to an EPC rating of C by 2030.
Reading on various forums how some older buildings will cost £4000-14000 to bring them up to code (with a few being utterly impossible), while saving tenants less than £100 a year on their energy bills.
The landlords that stay in the market will pass the costs on to tenants. Rents go up. The landlords that leave the market will reduce the supply of houses for rent. Again, rents go up.
Struggling to see who the policy benefits.
Everyone in time if it leads to more energy efficient buildings?
Cost benefit analysis on 14k to save sub 100 a year? It would take 140 years to pay back the investment...
That presumes that figures from “various forums” are accurate.
I recall fondly the assertion on PB that using tidal energy would cause the moon to collide with the earth, or shorten the day significantly or something. Based on some very dodgy assumptions.
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft. We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...
No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
Sorry but that is rubbish. The cancellation of projects and the shifting of investment away from the North Sea has turned from a trickle into a tidal wave since Milliband got into power. I had a number of potential contracts where the companies were absolutely clear that they had their plans on hold until they saw if Labour won (and followed through on their promises) and which have now been cancelled. Serica, Hartshead, Harbour, Ithaca and Dana are all reducing North Sea investment and reinvesting in exploration and development elsewhere - many of them in Norway.
Prior to the election Labour had been claiming that increasing the windfall tax would push North Sea tax revenues up from the (OBR) predicted £8.6 billion a year in 2028 to something over £10 billion. The latest prediction based on what Labour has proposed/done since it came to power is that that revenue will fall to £2 billion a year at most by 2028. To be honest, the way companies are now fleeing the North Sea I think they will be lucky to make that.
I have had 2 cases in Aberdeen recently and was staying in an hotel in the outskirts near the airport. The number of businesses and industrial estates there is remarkable, there is nothing even close to it in Scotland. Bristow helicopters were flying out from early in the morning (too early for my taste anyway). There were a lot of large jets as well.
The glory days of Aberdeen and Union Street have long since past. John Lewis is gone and the shopping centres are half empty. But there is still a scarily long way to fall. The consequences for Scottish industrial output (along with the consequential loss of Grangemouth) are going to be catastrophic. Scotland needs time to find new jobs and new investment. They could also do with a government that has some idea of the implications this has for the Scottish tax base. This policy of preventing the granting of more licences for the North Sea is the sort of economic vandalism that Thatcher was rightly criticised for during the Howe monetarist period. It is criminally stupid and not a little vicious.
Just wait till GB Energy (headquartered in Aberdeen) gets going.
If they were being given the budget of £22bn that is being wasted on carbon capture I would be more hopeful.
There was a time which carbon capture could have been genuinely useful. It was a time when huge coal burning power stations were our major source of energy. But we closed down the last coal burning power station last week. Even our gas powered stations are playing a smaller role. This strikes me as a classic Westminster catastrophe. By the time they finally get it up and running the need for it has disappeared.
Scotland, to me, is facing an economic tsunami. We need help to rebalance our economy away from plentiful North Sea oil. There is a moral obligation on the UK Treasury, who benefitted so substantially during the peak years, to help. I am genuinely concerned we have a government in Holyrood who are simply failing to recognise the consequences because they want to pretend that we are viable and should be independent on the one hand and a government overly influenced by a fool like Ed Miliband on the other. Neither are recognising the problem let alone seeking to address it. I am seriously pessimistic about Scotland's economic future.
I’m struggling to recall those crazy, hazy days when you were anything other than seriously pessimistic..
We have been running a substantial trade deficit for well over 20 years. We got a lot of growth out of financial services, Edinburgh did particularly well, but that has been a lot more difficult since 2008. Our industrial base is continuing to decline. Our education system, which we once could be particularly proud of, is declining. Our public sector is too large and, frankly, too well paid sucking talent out of the economy. We need to do some seriously hard thinking about what our children and their children are going to do for a living.
So, what can we do?
We have some excellent Universities in St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde. We have some good ones in Dundee, Aberdeen and Stirling. They seem to me the obvious base for our future, just as Monasteries were in the middle ages .
Not only do they bring a lot of money into Scotland through foreign students but they also spin off some businesses and generate significant investment such as the Wellcome Trust in Dundee and Microsoft in Edinburgh. We need to do all we can to generate more such businesses. That will include enterprise zones with lower taxes, close liaison between what the Universities teach and what these businesses of tomorrow want, tax and investment incentives and we need to encourage those trained here to stay and create their businesses here. They have the capacity to replace those industrial estates around Aberdeen.
We still have strength in financial services but it is absolutely essential that that business remains closely tied with London to which it is back office and services.
We need to try and get our tax rates competitive with the rest of the UK, to be focused on our economy and close the door on constitutional uncertainty, indeed every kind of uncertainty that we can control.
But this is not likely to happen, hence my pessimism.
Universities are doomed. Sorry
With a bit of luck universities will be well placed to return to sanity rather than being doomed. They can be very good at two things: really demanding vocational and quasi vocational training for really demanding careers - and they have been doing this since about 1100 with some success both in outcomes and in changing with the times.
They are also good at real rigorous academia as an exercise in being a civilized nation in a world in need of it, and world class research with both practical real world applications, and the good in itself of adding to the world's stock of reliable knowledge.
They are less good at being places to keep 18-22 year olds off the streets and out of the employment market and giving lazier schools an excuse for not doing decent careers advice, but hopefully that's just a passing fad which will price itself out of usefulness.
A university has been doing that since about 1100. A plural pronoun is not really appropriate for another century. Just to be pedantic…
I had Bologna and Oxford in mind. Keele was much later.
Thinking of the great Universities? Oxford, Cambridge, Hull?
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
Governments are going to find that it's much easier to get people to play along if they offer carrots rather than sticks. The only reason for a lot of EV purchases now is that the BIK rules make them very attractive to have as a company car (carrot).
Trying to get the public onboard with buying EVs by massive fines on the things they want to buy (stick) is going to go down like a cup of cold sick (and the public will know, because you can be sure the dealerships will tell them).
It's also going to remain difficult to shift them to the public all the while the residuals are rubbish (which will remain the case at least until technological development plateaus again - last years model will be worth even less than it otherwise would be if this years model is better/cheaper).
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft. We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...
No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
Sorry but that is rubbish. The cancellation of projects and the shifting of investment away from the North Sea has turned from a trickle into a tidal wave since Milliband got into power. I had a number of potential contracts where the companies were absolutely clear that they had their plans on hold until they saw if Labour won (and followed through on their promises) and which have now been cancelled. Serica, Hartshead, Harbour, Ithaca and Dana are all reducing North Sea investment and reinvesting in exploration and development elsewhere - many of them in Norway.
Prior to the election Labour had been claiming that increasing the windfall tax would push North Sea tax revenues up from the (OBR) predicted £8.6 billion a year in 2028 to something over £10 billion. The latest prediction based on what Labour has proposed/done since it came to power is that that revenue will fall to £2 billion a year at most by 2028. To be honest, the way companies are now fleeing the North Sea I think they will be lucky to make that.
I have had 2 cases in Aberdeen recently and was staying in an hotel in the outskirts near the airport. The number of businesses and industrial estates there is remarkable, there is nothing even close to it in Scotland. Bristow helicopters were flying out from early in the morning (too early for my taste anyway). There were a lot of large jets as well.
The glory days of Aberdeen and Union Street have long since past. John Lewis is gone and the shopping centres are half empty. But there is still a scarily long way to fall. The consequences for Scottish industrial output (along with the consequential loss of Grangemouth) are going to be catastrophic. Scotland needs time to find new jobs and new investment. They could also do with a government that has some idea of the implications this has for the Scottish tax base. This policy of preventing the granting of more licences for the North Sea is the sort of economic vandalism that Thatcher was rightly criticised for during the Howe monetarist period. It is criminally stupid and not a little vicious.
Just wait till GB Energy (headquartered in Aberdeen) gets going.
If they were being given the budget of £22bn that is being wasted on carbon capture I would be more hopeful.
There was a time which carbon capture could have been genuinely useful. It was a time when huge coal burning power stations were our major source of energy. But we closed down the last coal burning power station last week. Even our gas powered stations are playing a smaller role. This strikes me as a classic Westminster catastrophe. By the time they finally get it up and running the need for it has disappeared.
Scotland, to me, is facing an economic tsunami. We need help to rebalance our economy away from plentiful North Sea oil. There is a moral obligation on the UK Treasury, who benefitted so substantially during the peak years, to help. I am genuinely concerned we have a government in Holyrood who are simply failing to recognise the consequences because they want to pretend that we are viable and should be independent on the one hand and a government overly influenced by a fool like Ed Miliband on the other. Neither are recognising the problem let alone seeking to address it. I am seriously pessimistic about Scotland's economic future.
I’m struggling to recall those crazy, hazy days when you were anything other than seriously pessimistic..
We have been running a substantial trade deficit for well over 20 years. We got a lot of growth out of financial services, Edinburgh did particularly well, but that has been a lot more difficult since 2008. Our industrial base is continuing to decline. Our education system, which we once could be particularly proud of, is declining. Our public sector is too large and, frankly, too well paid sucking talent out of the economy. We need to do some seriously hard thinking about what our children and their children are going to do for a living.
So, what can we do?
We have some excellent Universities in St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde. We have some good ones in Dundee, Aberdeen and Stirling. They seem to me the obvious base for our future, just as Monasteries were in the middle ages .
Not only do they bring a lot of money into Scotland through foreign students but they also spin off some businesses and generate significant investment such as the Wellcome Trust in Dundee and Microsoft in Edinburgh. We need to do all we can to generate more such businesses. That will include enterprise zones with lower taxes, close liaison between what the Universities teach and what these businesses of tomorrow want, tax and investment incentives and we need to encourage those trained here to stay and create their businesses here. They have the capacity to replace those industrial estates around Aberdeen.
We still have strength in financial services but it is absolutely essential that that business remains closely tied with London to which it is back office and services.
We need to try and get our tax rates competitive with the rest of the UK, to be focused on our economy and close the door on constitutional uncertainty, indeed every kind of uncertainty that we can control.
But this is not likely to happen, hence my pessimism.
Universities are doomed. Sorry
With a bit of luck universities will be well placed to return to sanity rather than being doomed. They can be very good at two things: really demanding vocational and quasi vocational training for really demanding careers - and they have been doing this since about 1100 with some success both in outcomes and in changing with the times.
They are also good at real rigorous academia as an exercise in being a civilized nation in a world in need of it, and world class research with both practical real world applications, and the good in itself of adding to the world's stock of reliable knowledge.
They are less good at being places to keep 18-22 year olds off the streets and out of the employment market and giving lazier schools an excuse for not doing decent careers advice, but hopefully that's just a passing fad which will price itself out of usefulness.
A university has been doing that since about 1100. A plural pronoun is not really appropriate for another century. Just to be pedantic…
I had Bologna and Oxford in mind. Keele was much later.
Ah, I presumed you were sticking to (what would become) the UK.
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
The next exciting one is going to be forcing landlords to upgrade all properties to an EPC rating of C by 2030.
Reading on various forums how some older buildings will cost £4000-14000 to bring them up to code (with a few being utterly impossible), while saving tenants less than £100 a year on their energy bills.
The landlords that stay in the market will pass the costs on to tenants. Rents go up. The landlords that leave the market will reduce the supply of houses for rent. Again, rents go up.
Struggling to see who the policy benefits.
Everyone in time if it leads to more energy efficient buildings?
Yes, but spending £4k (never mind £14k)on energy efficiency to save £100 a year is a negative ROI - the savings wouldn't even pay the interest if you borrowed the money.
The government might as well tell landlords to go out and set fire to wads of £20 notes for all the good it does anyone.
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
Governments are going to find that it's much easier to get people to play along if they offer carrots rather than sticks. The only reason for a lot of EV purchases now is that the BIK rules make them very attractive to have as a company car (carrot).
Trying to get the public onboard with buying EVs by massive fines on the things they want to buy (stick) is going to go down like a cup of cold sick (and the public will know, because you can be sure the dealerships will tell them).
It's also going to remain difficult to shift them to the public all the while the residuals are rubbish (which will remain the case at least until technological development plateaus again - last years model will be worth even less than it otherwise would be if this years model is better/cheaper).
There has been discussion here about how the unpopularity of Lab and Con could see the LibDems, Greens and Reform UK making big gains at the next general election. What this (limited) set of local election results suggests is that the traditional parties (Con, LibDem, SNP) are usually the best poised to take advantage of any Labour decline.
One gain is good news for Reform UK. That’s a 4% increase in their total councillor count! But they’ve got a long journey ahead of them to become the sort of on-the-ground campaigning party that can turn votes into seats under FPTP.
And Reform had something of a head start in Blackpool anyway; presumably they managed to accumulate a bit of a ground force during the by-election.
The other story from pretty much all the recent by-elections is how low the turnouts have been. I mean, properly low. The winning post is much less far down the track than it normally is. That's both an opportunity and a problem for all parties.
Yes. To use a cliché, I think this is largely Labour voters staying at home rather than deserting the party.
Local by-elections often don’t track polling or other elections… but they often do!
This is exactly what happened after 1997 - the 1998 locals had a turnout of around 30% if memory serves. It's a step on the journey - the previously motivated Labour voters stays at home but that's a step from turning them into motivated anti-Labour voters and a step still to concentrating that anger around the main opposition party at Westminster.
Reform benefitted in Blackpool, the Greens in Lancaster - next week will be more informative as among the 18 contests are some Con-LD battles and two or three contests in Surrey which might give a clue as to the County elections next year.
The recent VI polls continue to show a slight Labour lead but the story of Labour down a little, the Conservatives and Reform up a little and it's more likely Labour will fall to meet the Conservatives rather than the Conservatives rising to meet Labour at this point.
The last two for the Conservative leadership will be known by this time next week - as an outside observer, I don't think the Conference was a big game changer. Jenrick went in as favourite and has come out as favourite - the race for the other name on the membership ballot is perhaps more open than it was.
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
Governments are going to find that it's much easier to get people to play along if they offer carrots rather than sticks. The only reason for a lot of EV purchases now is that the BIK rules make them very attractive to have as a company car (carrot).
Trying to get the public onboard with buying EVs by massive fines on the things they want to buy (stick) is going to go down like a cup of cold sick (and the public will know, because you can be sure the dealerships will tell them).
It's also going to remain difficult to shift them to the public all the while the residuals are rubbish (which will remain the case at least until technological development plateaus again - last years model will be worth even less than it otherwise would be if this years model is better/cheaper).
The idea that EV sales have vanished isn’t borne out by the data
They haven't but according to Sky business the sales of evs are almost exclusively to fleet buyers
Despite that, growth is (broadly) exponential.
The flaw in the private/fleet data is the increasing usage of salary sacrifice schemes to purchase EVs. Which are counted as fleet sales. As are some other leasing arrangements.
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
The next exciting one is going to be forcing landlords to upgrade all properties to an EPC rating of C by 2030.
Reading on various forums how some older buildings will cost £4000-14000 to bring them up to code (with a few being utterly impossible), while saving tenants less than £100 a year on their energy bills.
The landlords that stay in the market will pass the costs on to tenants. Rents go up. The landlords that leave the market will reduce the supply of houses for rent. Again, rents go up.
Struggling to see who the policy benefits.
Rents are are function of supply and demand, and demand is so high that additional costs aren't going to materially affect rents. We here this whining from landlords every single time and attempt is made to improve the lives of renters.
If supply of rental properties does fall, that's more homes available for first time buyers, thereby reducing demand for rental properties. They can then make the necessary investments in their homes, improve their living conditions and increase their value. Only a neo-feudal mindset would have a problem with this.
Sirens sounding in Southern Israel, another Hamas attack.
40,000 dead souls and the fabled "total victory" is as far away as ever.
I don't think anyone thinks that they could achieve "total victory" whatever that is supposed to mean. Their war aims were to destroy Hamas which, looking at the profile of the Oct 7th participants, looks like a forlorn hope. So then it is to inhibit via a "decapitation" of the leadership and do what they can to address the infrastructure/tunnels. I think they are on their way to do this but are as we have seen constraints via the international community.
And we are also seeing a completely different proposition with Hezbollah.
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
Governments are going to find that it's much easier to get people to play along if they offer carrots rather than sticks. The only reason for a lot of EV purchases now is that the BIK rules make them very attractive to have as a company car (carrot).
Trying to get the public onboard with buying EVs by massive fines on the things they want to buy (stick) is going to go down like a cup of cold sick (and the public will know, because you can be sure the dealerships will tell them).
It's also going to remain difficult to shift them to the public all the while the residuals are rubbish (which will remain the case at least until technological development plateaus again - last years model will be worth even less than it otherwise would be if this years model is better/cheaper).
The idea that EV sales have vanished isn’t borne out by the data
They haven't vanished. They have flatlined at 15-20%. Those 15-20% will be those with the best use-cases (e.g. moderate commute, rooftop solar, suitable drive, second ICE car in the household for long journeys), plus those who do particularly well out of the BIK rules.
The problem is that the government is determined to force the 80% of new buyers for whom a EV currently doesn't make sense to have one anyway. And almost entirely by the use of sticks, rather than carrots.
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
Comments
But yes, an additional £22 billion into Aberdeen would have been more than nice.
There's a sense of the U.S. as a bystander.
The problem with offshore wind is you just don't see it the same way you do cooling towers or blast furnaces, so the economic activity is hidden away. I suppose the same is true for North Sea O&G.
The UK is simultaneously somewhere that must never be questioned or put down and a crime ridden marxist backwater that anyone with a few quid must escape immediately. Very confused.
https://x.com/BritainElects/status/1842143286523244792
❗ Reform GAIN from Labour
Marton (Blackpool) council by-election result:
REF: 38.8% (+29.3)
LAB: 28.0% (-23.0)
CON: 21.3% (-18.2)
IND: 7.0% (+7.0)
LDEM: 2.8% (+2.8)
That's absolutely brutal and I entirely agree that this is going to cause problems for the Treasury and for the economy in the NE of Scotland. Just the idea that it's down to Ed Miliband seems a bit overblown and melodramatic.
Credit to Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce though - some of the best PR in ages with "100 days to save 100,000 jobs" .
The number of Chinese students has fallen sharply. Not sure if that indicates the state of the Chinese economy or other factors. The numbers from India and Nigeria are increasing but overall numbers have not fully recovered from Covid and the budgets are not looking great.
Labour are tanking in the locals
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1841981357422964992?t=Fk_OpxKf0NBNFgcW6tSxFA&s=19
It's an abject failure.
In the list of most visited websites last month, Rightmove ranked above PornHub, suggesting the British are (marginally) more interested in property smut than the literal kind.
The programmes I teach on have predominantly Chinese students, with much smaller numbers from Indonesia, India, Thailand, Europe, North America, sub-Saharan Africa, etc. This is good for the country's trade deficit as middle class Chinese families send their money to the UK, but maybe it would be better for the economy in general if there was more focus on teaching home students and/or research.
600,000sq km of the Indian Ocean
Fuck these people
While I'm in favour of phasing out oil consumption as rapidly as possible, stopping production while we're still consuming isn't very bright.
I don't see any real upside from CCS, either.
Perhaps more interesting is the numbers of voters that did not transfer, unionist tactical voting blows hot and cold it seems.
We have no idea. Politics is volatile. Five years is a long time.
Of the four elections yesterday we got:
Lab > Ref (Marton)
Lab > SNP (Lochee)
SNP > SNP (Strathmartine)
Lab > Green (Scotforth East)
ElectionMapsUK has some lovely charts and tables.
Quite possibly I will because my cabdriver is a fucking lunatic driving at 200kph while playing Reggaeton at 4 million decibels
https://x.com/polltracker2024/status/1841918635217949164
Ipsos swing state poll (AZ, GA, MI, NV, NC, PA, WI)
Trump 48
Harris 47
(9/24-10/1 LV)
The £8.6 billion is an average, 2022 - 2027, from their March '23 forecast. Influenced by the £10.6 billion in 23/24.
The average for the 6 years up to 2021-22 was just £0.8 billion, so Labour are actually going to do much better out of O&G than the Conservatives.
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
Seats won since 16th Sep:
🌳 CON: 9 (+4)
🔶 LDM: 5 (+2)
🌹 LAB: 4 (-10)
🎗️ SNP: 3 (+2)
🙋 IND: 3 (+1)
➡️ RFM: 1 (+1)
🌍 GRN: 1 (=)
There has been discussion here about how the unpopularity of Lab and Con could see the LibDems, Greens and Reform UK making big gains at the next general election. What this (limited) set of local election results suggests is that the traditional parties (Con, LibDem, SNP) are usually the best poised to take advantage of any Labour decline.
One gain is good news for Reform UK. That’s a 4% increase in their total councillor count! But they’ve got a long journey ahead of them to become the sort of on-the-ground campaigning party that can turn votes into seats under FPTP.
Dozens of San Fernando Valley white supremacist gang members charged in federal indictment, DOJ says
https://abc7.com/post/dozens-san-fernando-valley-white-supremacist-gang-members-arrested-charged-federal-indictment/15385105/
Forty-two members of what prosecutors call a San Fernando Valley-based white supremacist gang have been arrested in connection with a federal indictment unsealed Wednesday alleging a years-long criminal operation that included drug trafficking, weapons violations and COVID-19 and loan fraud.
According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, 29 people named in the indictment were arrested Wednesday in a series of raids involving the Los Angeles Police Department and other agencies. Thirteen other defendants were already in custody, prosecutors said.
Prosecutors said the gang has been allied with the Aryan Brotherhood and Mexican Mafia, and its members use "Nazi tattoos, graffiti and iconography to indicate their violent white supremacy extremist ideology."..
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
The other story from pretty much all the recent by-elections is how low the turnouts have been. I mean, properly low. The winning post is much less far down the track than it normally is. That's both an opportunity and a problem for all parties.
Reading on various forums how some older buildings will cost £4000-14000 to bring them up to code (with a few being utterly impossible), while saving tenants less than £100 a year on their energy bills.
The landlords that stay in the market will pass the costs on to tenants. Rents go up.
The landlords that leave the market will reduce the supply of houses for rent. Again, rents go up.
Struggling to see who the policy benefits.
Have to be in Pristina Kosovo ASAP for bizarre Gazette assignment visiting Europe’s cheapest and then most expensive cities (Geneva) with the same budget
Missed flight to Pristina last night due to wizzair
being wankers. Only choice (if I am to make it all work) was to get absurd early flight to Tirana then pray I can get a bus from Tirana to Pristina today then fly back Sunday at about midnight then fly to Geneva a few hours later
Albanian Taxi is stuck in rain. Heavy storms rage over the communist wedding cake citadels.
Reggaeton
Beautiful landscape around Himare and Dhermi particularly, very Greek in some ways, and with a lot of Greek speakers. Arguably that coastal strip right up to Himare and Dherrni should have been given to Greece, and nearly was in the 'twenties, and some parts just South of the Greek border should have been in Albania ; but the border is set now.
That's not to say that there isn't also beautiful scenery to seen further north, well away from the Greek areas, and around their lakes. Fascinatingly paradoxical country, when I saw it, awful and wonderful.
Trying to get the public onboard with buying EVs by massive fines on the things they want to buy (stick) is going to go down like a cup of cold sick (and the public will know, because you can be sure the dealerships will tell them).
It's also going to remain difficult to shift them to the public all the while the residuals are rubbish (which will remain the case at least until technological development plateaus again - last years model will be worth even less than it otherwise would be if this years model is better/cheaper).
They are also good at real rigorous academia as an exercise in being a civilized nation in a world in need of it, and world class research with both practical real world applications, and the good in itself of adding to the world's stock of reliable knowledge.
They are less good at being places to keep 18-22 year olds off the streets and out of the employment market and giving lazier schools an excuse for not doing decent careers advice, but hopefully that's just a passing fad which will price itself out of usefulness.
How do you say in Albanian “this fucking music sucks and btw I have only had 2 hours sleep and you don’t actually have to drive at 320kph”
Local by-elections often don’t track polling or other elections… but they often do!
https://thecritic.co.uk/murderess-with-no-regrets/
I SHOULDN’T EVEN BE IN ALBANIA
The idea that EV sales have vanished isn’t borne out by the data
The government might as well tell landlords to go out and set fire to wads of £20 notes for all the good it does anyone.
Reform benefitted in Blackpool, the Greens in Lancaster - next week will be more informative as among the 18 contests are some Con-LD battles and two or three contests in Surrey which might give a clue as to the County elections next year.
The recent VI polls continue to show a slight Labour lead but the story of Labour down a little, the Conservatives and Reform up a little and it's more likely Labour will fall to meet the Conservatives rather than the Conservatives rising to meet Labour at this point.
The last two for the Conservative leadership will be known by this time next week - as an outside observer, I don't think the Conference was a big game changer. Jenrick went in as favourite and has come out as favourite - the race for the other name on the membership ballot is perhaps more open than it was.
40,000 dead souls and the fabled "total victory" is as far away as ever.
Looks like an SRB malfunctioned on the second Vulcan launch. Made orbit Ok - looks like there was enough performance reserve to compensate.
If supply of rental properties does fall, that's more homes available for first time buyers, thereby reducing demand for rental properties. They can then make the necessary investments in their homes, improve their living conditions and increase their value. Only a neo-feudal mindset would have a problem with this.
I am a landlord, and approve this message.
And we are also seeing a completely different proposition with Hezbollah.
The problem is that the government is determined to force the 80% of new buyers for whom a EV currently doesn't make sense to have one anyway. And almost entirely by the use of sticks, rather than carrots.
This seems unlikely to end nicely.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/04/britain-care-crisis-hollowing-out-communities/
Luckily it seemed to happen *away* from the main rocket body.