I've just bet £50 at 23/20 (boosted) with Ladbrokes that Starmer will not be PM going into the next election.
I think he may well step down prior to the GE in order to refresh the party, and he is getting rather old, but I don't think those odds very good value. It is very hard to unseat a sitting Labour leader, so your bet is effectively on Starmer dying or voluntarily stepping down. Politicians are by nature rather vain, so reluctant to go gracefully.
The odds aren't brilliant, and normally I wouldn't make a bet like this, but seeing how badly the man has done in 100 days and now terrible he looks now.. my instincts are he becomes very unpopular, he ends up hating the job, and he doesn't fight another election.
What odds did you get? I don’t understand 23/20. Is that literally 23/20 in old money
As in: nearly evens?
Yes, it's just over evens.
A 47% chance he's not PM at the next election.
Poor odds I have to say. Except that… the bookies can read the rumours just like anyone else. That might account for their skepticism that he will last the course
And now you have the added imprimatur of @Roger’s disapproval, a man so stupid he cannot walk and eat crisps at the same time
Bad odds. But.you're certain to win
That's not what the bookies are doing, is it? It's not that's their estimate of the probability so much as those are the odds where they win whatever happens. There are mugs somewhere, and the only question is which side of the bet.
See also: England's odds of winning at every international tournament ever.
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
This illustrates the problem not the solution. Let is assume the 'science' is correct and includes the real possibility we are doomed bigly if CO2 continues to rise.
It doesn't matter if there are reductions in CO2 emissions (so far there aren't by the way). CO2 is going to carry on being emitted for the long term future. A complete turnaround isn't on any horizon.
This adds, at whatever speed, to the CO2 already there. It's like debt. Lowering the amount you borrow further sounds good but still increases the debt.
This means that unless carbon capture works, if we could be doomed, we are doomed.
The only chances we have are: actually we aren't doomed despite CO2; or the successful scaling up of carbon capture by a global hoover. There are no other options. (Obvs maximal greening is also essential - that's a given).
In terms of reducing emissions, it's like paying off your highest interest debts first. That's why switching from coal to gas in the 2010s was probably the most important intervention we have made so far.
Next up is wind, solar, EVs and heat pumps, probably in that order. You'd get an awful lot more carbon out of the atmosphere over 50 years from 5GW of wind power than a speculative effort at CCS (I think 5GW is roughly equivalent to £20 billion).
But, and again I’ll defer to someone with inside knowledge on this, my understanding is that the CCUS play is largely a piece of industrial strategy. It’s giving a nascent industry a guaranteed buyer once it’s off the ground, so that industry can then start selling storage to the world and make money.
It’s not money on the table now but it’s the sort of strategy the US military has successfully used to incubate future aerospace and defence giants.
The America is on the wrong track polling could to some extent reflect Trump/Maga. Individual candidate unfavourability has Harris polling lower than Trump. Trump is marmite and has a ceiling of 46-47%. This becomes all about getting the vote out.
The further you go downballot, the more polling favours the Democrats. Ratings changes have mostly been in favour of Democratic congressional candidates. In the senate WV and MT were always going to be tricky but who thought TX would be in play?
The money favours Harris, the significant numbers of Republicans who are refusing to endorse Trump, or even endorsing Harris, is an indicator those Haley voters are not all going to fall into line.
The early vote assessments, for instance in NV, are based on assumptions that registration with a party equals a vote for that party and that voting behaviour will be as previous cycles. This is a dangerous assumption. Democrats may be holding off to election day, cogniscent of how Trump will spin the election day vote. Reps may be voting earlier. Who knows?
I still see nothing to suggest Trump can improve on his loss in 2020. He’s older, madder and franly his campaign has been nowhere near as effective. There is clearly enthusiasm for Harris, it may be just the base but it rubs off. And there seems to be particular enthusiasm where it is needed, in PA and WI.
Harris wins, and afterwards the inquest into how junk polling skewed the media narrative will be brutal.
I hope a) that you are right and b) the American military have plans in hand to protect Trump's opponents. Especially on Inauguration Day!
In the mid 2000's a good buddy of mine shot a spot with The Donald, and he raved about how nice and accommodating he was. It was surprising to me at the time, because in NYC he was known as a total bastard with business deals. And based on his Playboy personality, you might expect him to be a total douche IRL. Not so, said my friend.
Then, in 2009 I was on a long business trip w/ a different friend of mine, who had worked with Trump on a different ad campaign, and he said the exact same thing: that Trump was surprisingly cool. Again, I was a bit surprised. So I asked him to give me the deets.
Very probably true. I've worked with many who were expected to play the prima donna who ended up being anything but-and vice versa. I remember in the early days of PB recounting a story about someone I'd worked with that was extremely indiscreet without realising the reach of this site and then regretting it for weeks afterwards. So stories from people who work with celebs on ads will invariably be nice ones-or ones not told at all!
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
My understanding, but you may be closer to the industry, is that CCUS is potentially a pretty lucrative export business for the UK because we have the right coastal geography and geology as well as the existing hydrocarbons clusters. So the East Coast could be a carbon capture hub for Northern Europe.
So long as there’s enough demand to give a return on investment it seems like an industry worth investing in. Most of the other green technologies have already been snaffled up by other countries. If you look on it as something that could make money rather than the solution to net zero then it makes sense.
No, the other technologies haven’t been all snaffled.
One on the way is using people carrying drones (think totally automated mini helicopters). Already used in Ukraine for casualty evacuation.
Another is atmospheric carbon capture to fuel, using solar. There is an interesting company that is looking at cracking hydrogen from water, catalytically, and then Sabatier to create methane. Some of the details are clever - no storage - just run when the sun shines. Another is no conversion electronics - put the power from the solar panels direct into the system.
I’d have thought at least some of those would be ideally placed to thrive in an industrial ecosystem already bolstered by CCUS facilities. A way of keeping and building jobs and skills in place while the transition runs its course.
If you see this as industrial strategy rather than the silver bullet for climate change then it makes sense, to me at least. Yes it’s picking winners, but let’s be honest the only cabinet minister who really seems to have come out of the blocks running after the election in implementing a properly radical industrial agenda is Ed Miliband. People may disagree with him or find him not to their taste, but he’s exhibiting something the rest of the front bench have not been: energy and drive in the job. And bravery. Look at all the criticism of Starmer’s timidity. Ed’s certainly not been timid.
Streeting is showing some signs of this, and Philipson just needs her time in the spotlight which hasn’t come yet, but Ed was right in there from day 1.
The problem is that his strategy is an “energy squeeze” based on high prices for energy.
Which approach is already creating comedies.
As the cost of solar continues to collapse, we are going to have very cheap energy. Especially after solar + storage takes off.
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
This illustrates the problem not the solution. Let is assume the 'science' is correct and includes the real possibility we are doomed bigly if CO2 continues to rise.
It doesn't matter if there are reductions in CO2 emissions (so far there aren't by the way). CO2 is going to carry on being emitted for the long term future. A complete turnaround isn't on any horizon.
This adds, at whatever speed, to the CO2 already there. It's like debt. Lowering the amount you borrow further sounds good but still increases the debt.
This means that unless carbon capture works, if we could be doomed, we are doomed.
The only chances we have are: actually we aren't doomed despite CO2; or the successful scaling up of carbon capture by a global hoover. There are no other options. (Obvs maximal greening is also essential - that's a given).
In terms of reducing emissions, it's like paying off your highest interest debts first. That's why switching from coal to gas in the 2010s was probably the most important intervention we have made so far.
Next up is wind, solar, EVs and heat pumps, probably in that order. You'd get an awful lot more carbon out of the atmosphere over 50 years from 5GW of wind power than a speculative effort at CCS (I think 5GW is roughly equivalent to £20 billion).
But, and again I’ll defer to someone with inside knowledge on this, my understanding is that the CCUS play is largely a piece of industrial strategy. It’s giving a nascent industry a guaranteed buyer once it’s off the ground, so that industry can then start selling storage to the world and make money.
It’s not money on the table now but it’s the sort of strategy the US military has successfully used to incubate future aerospace and defence giants.
That's fair enough, if that is the motivation for it. But from a pure UK carbon emissions perspective, it's not the smartest use of money.
From an investment in the north of England perspective - great, if it works.
I'm not sure I share your credence placed in Trump distancing himself from Project 2025. Or rather, I'm not sure Trump will really be in power if he wins. I think he'll still be more interested in playing golf, but I think he'll be persuaded to employ people around him who are keen to implement Project 2025 or something similar and who will hold the real power.
Whether or not they manage to remains to be seen, but I don't think it can be so easily dismissed.
In fact, rather than hate him, I'm now starting to pity him.
It is quite painful to watch someone flounder so badly, with no obvious prospect of improvement. He’s 61 - and really looking it now - fat and sad
What’s he gonna be like in five years??!
I really wonder if he will stay the course. He looks miserable as well as obese
It’s early days so he still has a chance to turn it around. This weeks budget is an important step towards that.
However he just comes over as totally unsuited to the role, just like like Sunak.
An over promoted middle Manager.
Leaving aside the politics I would say Starmer has been OK so far in the job he's appointed to do of running the country. Probably Cameron level. Which isn't a high bar admittedly, but does mean he's an improvement on all four of his predecessors. If he avoids Cameron's big mistakes, Starmer has the possibility of being better than him too.
He's comfortable making decisions, unlike his predecessors - Starmer has made far more decisions in three months than Sunak managed in two years. The decisions have been reasonable ones given the problems they try to solve. In most cases they were taken after his predecessor failed to decide and was just playing for time.
Starmer's big problem in my view is rebuilding trust in politics. I'm not sure he's capable of that. The previous government left the country in a bad state and wore people out with its endless psychodramas. Starmer needs people to think, it's going to be OK
The America is on the wrong track polling could to some extent reflect Trump/Maga. Individual candidate unfavourability has Harris polling lower than Trump. Trump is marmite and has a ceiling of 46-47%. This becomes all about getting the vote out.
The further you go downballot, the more polling favours the Democrats. Ratings changes have mostly been in favour of Democratic congressional candidates. In the senate WV and MT were always going to be tricky but who thought TX would be in play?
The money favours Harris, the significant numbers of Republicans who are refusing to endorse Trump, or even endorsing Harris, is an indicator those Haley voters are not all going to fall into line.
The early vote assessments, for instance in NV, are based on assumptions that registration with a party equals a vote for that party and that voting behaviour will be as previous cycles. This is a dangerous assumption. Democrats may be holding off to election day, cogniscent of how Trump will spin the election day vote. Reps may be voting earlier. Who knows?
I still see nothing to suggest Trump can improve on his loss in 2020. He’s older, madder and franly his campaign has been nowhere near as effective. There is clearly enthusiasm for Harris, it may be just the base but it rubs off. And there seems to be particular enthusiasm where it is needed, in PA and WI.
Harris wins, and afterwards the inquest into how junk polling skewed the media narrative will be brutal.
Harris may well win but the idea that Trump is being boosted by junk polling is a dangerous delusion.
Good pollsters (Sienna, Emerson, Atlas, Fox/Beacon, etc) are showing swings to Trump.
Little reliance should be placed upon Harris Republicans.
I very much doubt that Plan A involved him becoming Prime Minister. More likely it was that he's just having cleaned up the party, moved them on a bit but lost. That he became PM is a function of the repeated pratfalls by the last lot.
He's not getting any younger, and the job takes it out of a man- look at Johnson or Sunak. I reckon his plan B is to win in 2028 and retire in 2030. Whether that works or not is not yet for ours to see.
Plan C would be to do a Biden in 2028 or so; step down with a medical chitty and hand over to someone younger and smiler.
50:50 chance that he goes early? I wouldn't put it that high, but it's certainly not a low chance. What really kills these odds for me is that the return might be more than four years away. You can get a decent lower-risk return in that time.
The other factor, there isn't an obvious replacement at the moment.
Ah, that's when Starmer tearfully does the walk of shame to the Palace and advises the King to call for Badenoch/Farage/Truss/Johnson/the exhumed remains of Lady Thatcher.
But yes, the thing to watch is who gets promoted at the mid-term reshuffle
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
This illustrates the problem not the solution. Let is assume the 'science' is correct and includes the real possibility we are doomed bigly if CO2 continues to rise.
It doesn't matter if there are reductions in CO2 emissions (so far there aren't by the way). CO2 is going to carry on being emitted for the long term future. A complete turnaround isn't on any horizon.
This adds, at whatever speed, to the CO2 already there. It's like debt. Lowering the amount you borrow further sounds good but still increases the debt.
This means that unless carbon capture works, if we could be doomed, we are doomed.
The only chances we have are: actually we aren't doomed despite CO2; or the successful scaling up of carbon capture by a global hoover. There are no other options. (Obvs maximal greening is also essential - that's a given).
Empress trees are the most efficient plants at capturing carbon per acre, absorbing over 100 tons per acre per year.
There are nearly 20 million acres in Scotland so that's about 2,000 million tons of carbon removed from the atmosphere per year. The UK currently emits about 400 million tons of carbon a year. Job done. Thanks you Scotland.
Dressing agricultural fields with basalt would draw down 45% of the carbon we would need to get to Net Zero, and also have a host of other benefits. And it's not done by photosynthesis.
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
I think this is backwards. Once you max out the grid with renewables, you probably have times when you have lots of surplus energy that you can use for carbon capture. Assuming you're still making things like concrete and glass you'll be producing CO2 even if their energy source is totally renewable, so if you're serious about net zero you need to be doing carbon capture.
The argument against carbon capture is that the whole idea that the UK is going to get to Net Zero is fake, and it'll be using loads of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, in which case you'd be better spending the money chipping away at that.
I very much doubt that Plan A involved him becoming Prime Minister. More likely it was that he's just having cleaned up the party, moved them on a bit but lost. That he became PM is a function of the repeated pratfalls by the last lot.
He's not getting any younger, and the job takes it out of a man- look at Johnson or Sunak. I reckon his plan B is to win in 2028 and retire in 2030. Whether that works or not is not yet for ours to see.
Plan C would be to do a Biden in 2028 or so; step down with a medical chitty and hand over to someone younger and smiler.
50:50 chance that he goes early? I wouldn't put it that high, but it's certainly not a low chance. What really kills these odds for me is that the return might be more than four years away. You can get a decent lower-risk return in that time.
The other factor, there isn't an obvious replacement at the moment.
Ah, that's when Starmer tearfully does the walk of shame to the Palace and advises the King to call for Badenoch/Farage/Truss/Johnson/the exhumed remains of Lady Thatcher.
But yes, the thing to watch is who gets promoted at the mid-term reshuffle
My comment about no obvious replacement wasn't just talking about the Labour party!
Starmer's personal ratings are terrible, but the public don't really like anybody else, so there is literally no pressure for the foreseeable future.
I've just bet £50 at 23/20 (boosted) with Ladbrokes that Starmer will not be PM going into the next election.
I think he may well step down prior to the GE in order to refresh the party, and he is getting rather old, but I don't think those odds very good value. It is very hard to unseat a sitting Labour leader, so your bet is effectively on Starmer dying or voluntarily stepping down. Politicians are by nature rather vain, so reluctant to go gracefully.
The odds aren't brilliant, and normally I wouldn't make a bet like this, but seeing how badly the man has done in 100 days and now terrible he looks now.. my instincts are he becomes very unpopular, he ends up hating the job, and he doesn't fight another election.
What odds did you get? I don’t understand 23/20. Is that literally 23/20 in old money
As in: nearly evens?
Yes, it's just over evens.
A 47% chance he's not PM at the next election.
Poor odds I have to say. Except that… the bookies can read the rumours just like anyone else. That might account for their skepticism that he will last the course
And now you have the added imprimatur of @Roger’s disapproval, a man so stupid he cannot walk and eat crisps at the same time
Bad odds. But.you're certain to win
That's not what the bookies are doing, is it? It's not that's their estimate of the probability so much as those are the odds where they win whatever happens. There are mugs somewhere, and the only question is which side of the bet.
See also: England's odds of winning at every international tournament ever.
Indeed, it's not called "book making" for no reason.
It's very little to do with probabilities and more to do with opinions. If those who want Trump or Harris (or Jenrick or Badenoch) to win for example put money on, the bookies will shorten the odds and for those unfamiliar with betting the fact the odds are shortening somehow makes it more "likely" Trump will win (or rather, that's how it is reported).
You have information and opinion - @Casino_Royale has an opinion, that's all, and he's supporting that opinion with his money. I very much doubt Starmer will be told "someone has put £50 on you not being PM at the next election, you'd better resign"
In the same way, if you have a number of polls from organisations and individuals clearing favouring one side, they create a narrative which drives the market (or rather the speculators/traders). Disinformation or misinformation is often a stronger factor than the truth.
There's also the size and liquidity of any market to consider - if I put £100k on Badenoch to win the Conservative leadership, that would probalby move the market - if I put a tenner on the first race at Wincanton this afternoon, it probably wouldn't.
I've just bet £50 at 23/20 (boosted) with Ladbrokes that Starmer will not be PM going into the next election.
I think he may well step down prior to the GE in order to refresh the party, and he is getting rather old, but I don't think those odds very good value. It is very hard to unseat a sitting Labour leader, so your bet is effectively on Starmer dying or voluntarily stepping down. Politicians are by nature rather vain, so reluctant to go gracefully.
The odds aren't brilliant, and normally I wouldn't make a bet like this, but seeing how badly the man has done in 100 days and now terrible he looks now.. my instincts are he becomes very unpopular, he ends up hating the job, and he doesn't fight another election.
What odds did you get? I don’t understand 23/20. Is that literally 23/20 in old money
As in: nearly evens?
Yes, it's just over evens.
A 47% chance he's not PM at the next election.
Poor odds I have to say. Except that… the bookies can read the rumours just like anyone else. That might account for their skepticism that he will last the course
And now you have the added imprimatur of @Roger’s disapproval, a man so stupid he cannot walk and eat crisps at the same time
Bad odds. But.you're certain to win
Neither May, Boris, Truss (zero) or Sunak fought more than one election. The last to do two was Cameron.
His landslide majority is a chimera. What matters will be his polling, which I expect will become dire.
The interesting thing is that the Tories have already bounced back in the local election by-elections.
My assumption had been that, if Starmer, Reeves and Labour crashed and burned quickly, before the Tories sorted themselves out, that it would create an opening for Reform or Lib Dems, because the voters would be looking for an alternative to both parties.
Now I'm not so sure. If the voters become desperate to get rid of Labour then only the Tories are a realistic alternative government. Reform and Lib Dems may have missed their chance to eclipse the Tories already.
Mr. Eabhal, Starmer's judgement is such he's ceded strategically important territory while at the same time promising to pay for its infrastructure to be improved.
He's signed up to a document promising debate on 'reparative justice'. So far, his judgement is atrocious and his backbone utterly absent. Signing us up for reparations would be so monumentally craven it might not happen, but it is a credible possibility from Starmer.
I don't disagree on Diego Garcia, but he's just carried forward Tory policy - where was the outrage then?
Therew would be no debate on reparations if Starmer had signed up to doing it! It's a diplomatic way to say "no". What would you have him do - put his hands over his ears, sing Rule Britannia and dissolve the Commonwealth?
I'm somewhat in the middle on this one.
I agree the legacy and effects of slavery need to be addressed. However attempts to do this by a sole UK focus and demand for "cash - now!" are an unapologetic guilt-driven mugging by contemporary politicians. And such would get fully or partly pissed away on corruption and golden cows.
It needs something far more like a sovereign wealth fund devoted to development over decades or centuries.
The model the Church Commissioners are using on this is one reasonable (I suggest) way of addressing it; they agreed to put up about 1% of their assets (£100m) into a fund a number of years ago, and commissioned research looking for what they should be looking at given that part basis of their assets 2 or 3 centuries ago were slavery linked.
The research said this is not enough. So they will develop it over time and invite others (such as HNW individuals whose fortunes have come all or part from slavery linked businesses) to join their institutional structure. Importantly, they are moving cautiously and sustainably.
We bequeathed the rule of law, the English language, liberal democracy and industrial capitalism. If anything I think it is us owed interest. Many of these areas would never have managed a written language left to their own devices.
Not so sure that the last 2 are true.
We only encouraged liberal democracy after independence became inevitable, such as India in the 1940s and in Africa in the late 1950s. Prior to that we had assemblies heavily restricted in voter eligibility thereby ensuring white control, such as Jamaica and Rhodesia. We only became pro-democracy in these places after we left.
By and large we controlled the terms of trade to prioritise commodity exports to our islands with industrial goods in exchange. We de-industrialised India for example.
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
I think this is backwards. Once you max out the grid with renewables, you probably have times when you have lots of surplus energy that you can use for carbon capture. Assuming you're still making things like concrete and glass you'll be producing CO2 even if their energy source is totally renewable, so if you're serious about net zero you need to be doing carbon capture.
The argument against carbon capture is that the whole idea that the UK is going to get to Net Zero is fake, and it'll be using loads of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, in which case you'd be better spending the money chipping away at that.
The answer is somewhere between the two scenarios, right?
Net Zero could end up a bit like the Government's approach to fiscal rules - we'll have debt coming down in five years time. We'll make all the changes to our energy production and use in the 2040s.
If anyone has a subscription to The Economist (or just their podcasts) this weeks 'Weekend Intelligence' is quite enjoyable. A nerdy dive into their US Election model, probabilities, stats etc. Which I'm guessing might be of passing interest to some
I'm not sure I share your credence placed in Trump distancing himself from Project 2025. Or rather, I'm not sure Trump will really be in power if he wins. I think he'll still be more interested in playing golf, but I think he'll be persuaded to employ people around him who are keen to implement Project 2025 or something similar and who will hold the real power.
Whether or not they manage to remains to be seen, but I don't think it can be so easily dismissed.
If I were a sinister Project 2025-ite, I'd be hoping to be Blackadder to Trump's Pitt the Elder,
He’s about as effective as a catflap in an elephant house. As long as his feet are warm and he gets a nice cup of milky tea in the sun before his morning nap, he doesn't bother anyone until his potty needs emptying.
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
This illustrates the problem not the solution. Let is assume the 'science' is correct and includes the real possibility we are doomed bigly if CO2 continues to rise.
It doesn't matter if there are reductions in CO2 emissions (so far there aren't by the way). CO2 is going to carry on being emitted for the long term future. A complete turnaround isn't on any horizon.
This adds, at whatever speed, to the CO2 already there. It's like debt. Lowering the amount you borrow further sounds good but still increases the debt.
This means that unless carbon capture works, if we could be doomed, we are doomed.
The only chances we have are: actually we aren't doomed despite CO2; or the successful scaling up of carbon capture by a global hoover. There are no other options. (Obvs maximal greening is also essential - that's a given).
Empress trees are the most efficient plants at capturing carbon per acre, absorbing over 100 tons per acre per year.
There are nearly 20 million acres in Scotland so that's about 2,000 million tons of carbon removed from the atmosphere per year. The UK currently emits about 400 million tons of carbon a year. Job done. Thanks you Scotland.
This only applies whilst the tree is growing, once mature its carbon capture is, to use a term, net zero. The only real way the mass planting of trees is anything other than cosmetic is to plant them, grow them, cut them down when at the point they are more or less neutral, and importantly preserve them, probably through treating them and then burial , rinse and repeat.
Remember, only growing trees consume more carbon through photosynthesis than they release during respiration. The carbon cycle you were told at school was a dumbed down bit of science to get across what photosynthesis is.
I very much doubt that Plan A involved him becoming Prime Minister. More likely it was that he's just having cleaned up the party, moved them on a bit but lost. That he became PM is a function of the repeated pratfalls by the last lot.
He's not getting any younger, and the job takes it out of a man- look at Johnson or Sunak. I reckon his plan B is to win in 2028 and retire in 2030. Whether that works or not is not yet for ours to see.
Plan C would be to do a Biden in 2028 or so; step down with a medical chitty and hand over to someone younger and smiler.
50:50 chance that he goes early? I wouldn't put it that high, but it's certainly not a low chance. What really kills these odds for me is that the return might be more than four years away. You can get a decent lower-risk return in that time.
The other factor, there isn't an obvious replacement at the moment.
Ah, that's when Starmer tearfully does the walk of shame to the Palace and advises the King to call for Badenoch/Farage/Truss/Johnson/the exhumed remains of Lady Thatcher.
But yes, the thing to watch is who gets promoted at the mid-term reshuffle
My comment about no obvious replacement wasn't just talking about the Labour party!
Starmer's personal ratings are terrible, but the public don't really like anybody else, so there is literally no pressure for the foreseeable future.
That's the key.
No politician is popular at present for either government nor opposition.
I think it quite possible for Starmer to recover to being the best of a bad lot, and there are hints about that happening. The mood music from Labour has become more positive and active recent weeks. Sure their will be tax rises in the budget, but also I think a few surprises that will go down well with supporters.
I've just bet £50 at 23/20 (boosted) with Ladbrokes that Starmer will not be PM going into the next election.
I think he may well step down prior to the GE in order to refresh the party, and he is getting rather old, but I don't think those odds very good value. It is very hard to unseat a sitting Labour leader, so your bet is effectively on Starmer dying or voluntarily stepping down. Politicians are by nature rather vain, so reluctant to go gracefully.
The odds aren't brilliant, and normally I wouldn't make a bet like this, but seeing how badly the man has done in 100 days and now terrible he looks now.. my instincts are he becomes very unpopular, he ends up hating the job, and he doesn't fight another election.
What odds did you get? I don’t understand 23/20. Is that literally 23/20 in old money
As in: nearly evens?
Yes, it's just over evens.
A 47% chance he's not PM at the next election.
Poor odds I have to say. Except that… the bookies can read the rumours just like anyone else. That might account for their skepticism that he will last the course
And now you have the added imprimatur of @Roger’s disapproval, a man so stupid he cannot walk and eat crisps at the same time
Bad odds. But.you're certain to win
Neither May, Boris, Truss (zero) or Sunak fought more than one election. The last to do two was Cameron.
His landslide majority is a chimera. What matters will be his polling, which I expect will become dire.
The interesting thing is that the Tories have already bounced back in the local election by-elections.
My assumption had been that, if Starmer, Reeves and Labour crashed and burned quickly, before the Tories sorted themselves out, that it would create an opening for Reform or Lib Dems, because the voters would be looking for an alternative to both parties.
Now I'm not so sure. If the voters become desperate to get rid of Labour then only the Tories are a realistic alternative government. Reform and Lib Dems may have missed their chance to eclipse the Tories already.
Remember what is driving the volume and location of local by-elections. Labour gains direct from the Tories at the GE in fairly affluent areas, and the consequent resignation of newly minted MPs as councillors, very often in the more Labour leaning, sometimes slightly less affluent bits, of those same areas. The established Tory/Labour interface in traditionally Tory friendly areas is being thoroughly polled here.
In fact, rather than hate him, I'm now starting to pity him.
It is quite painful to watch someone flounder so badly, with no obvious prospect of improvement. He’s 61 - and really looking it now - fat and sad
What’s he gonna be like in five years??!
I really wonder if he will stay the course. He looks miserable as well as obese
It’s early days so he still has a chance to turn it around. This weeks budget is an important step towards that.
However he just comes over as totally unsuited to the role, just like like Sunak.
An over promoted middle Manager.
Leaving aside the politics I would say Starmer has been OK so far in the job he's appointed to do of running the country. Probably Cameron level. Which isn't a high bar admittedly, but does mean he's an improvement on all four of his predecessors. If he avoids Cameron's big mistakes, Starmer has the possibility of being better than him too.
He's comfortable making decisions, unlike his predecessors - Starmer has made far more decisions in three months than Sunak managed in two years. The decisions have been reasonable ones given the problems they try to solve. In most cases they were taken after his predecessor failed to decide and was just playing for time.
Starmer's big problem in my view is rebuilding trust in politics. I'm not sure he's capable of that. The previous government left the country in a bad state and wore people out with its endless psychodramas. Starmer needs people to think, it's going to be OK
I very much doubt that Plan A involved him becoming Prime Minister. More likely it was that he's just having cleaned up the party, moved them on a bit but lost. That he became PM is a function of the repeated pratfalls by the last lot.
He's not getting any younger, and the job takes it out of a man- look at Johnson or Sunak. I reckon his plan B is to win in 2028 and retire in 2030. Whether that works or not is not yet for ours to see.
Plan C would be to do a Biden in 2028 or so; step down with a medical chitty and hand over to someone younger and smiler.
50:50 chance that he goes early? I wouldn't put it that high, but it's certainly not a low chance. What really kills these odds for me is that the return might be more than four years away. You can get a decent lower-risk return in that time.
The other factor, there isn't an obvious replacement at the moment.
Ah, that's when Starmer tearfully does the walk of shame to the Palace and advises the King to call for Badenoch/Farage/Truss/Johnson/the exhumed remains of Lady Thatcher.
But yes, the thing to watch is who gets promoted at the mid-term reshuffle
Your point about Starmer not being the intended Prime Minister is one I've heard before. What I've heard is that Starmer was meant to be a transitional LOTO, getting rid of all the lefties and losing well, before Wes Streeting took over and won the next election. It sort of makes sense. One could not have expected Boris's entire majority to be gone at a stroke.
That would explain why a leader with very deep flaws, both in character and circumstances, is now PM, and why every day is a constant mess. Wes Streeting won't now be able to take over - he is a 'good time' successor LOTO, not an emergency steady the ship PM.
It has its lessons for the Tory Party too - people saying the Tories need a good LOTO not an alternative PM and programme for Government are talking nonsense I'm afraid. You never know when you'll be called to govern.
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
This illustrates the problem not the solution. Let is assume the 'science' is correct and includes the real possibility we are doomed bigly if CO2 continues to rise.
It doesn't matter if there are reductions in CO2 emissions (so far there aren't by the way). CO2 is going to carry on being emitted for the long term future. A complete turnaround isn't on any horizon.
This adds, at whatever speed, to the CO2 already there. It's like debt. Lowering the amount you borrow further sounds good but still increases the debt.
This means that unless carbon capture works, if we could be doomed, we are doomed.
The only chances we have are: actually we aren't doomed despite CO2; or the successful scaling up of carbon capture by a global hoover. There are no other options. (Obvs maximal greening is also essential - that's a given).
Empress trees are the most efficient plants at capturing carbon per acre, absorbing over 100 tons per acre per year.
There are nearly 20 million acres in Scotland so that's about 2,000 million tons of carbon removed from the atmosphere per year. The UK currently emits about 400 million tons of carbon a year. Job done. Thanks you Scotland.
This only applies whilst the tree is growing, once mature its carbon capture is, to use a term, net zero. The only real way the mass planting of trees is anything other than cosmetic is to plant them, grow them, cut them down when at the point they are more or less neutral, and importantly preserve them, probably through treating them and then burial , rinse and repeat.
Remember, only growing trees consume more carbon through photosynthesis than they release during respiration. The carbon cycle you were told at school was a dumbed down bit of science to get across what photosynthesis is.
Or build our houses with them. Save on all the carbon intensive materials we use at the moment.
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
This illustrates the problem not the solution. Let is assume the 'science' is correct and includes the real possibility we are doomed bigly if CO2 continues to rise.
It doesn't matter if there are reductions in CO2 emissions (so far there aren't by the way). CO2 is going to carry on being emitted for the long term future. A complete turnaround isn't on any horizon.
This adds, at whatever speed, to the CO2 already there. It's like debt. Lowering the amount you borrow further sounds good but still increases the debt.
This means that unless carbon capture works, if we could be doomed, we are doomed.
The only chances we have are: actually we aren't doomed despite CO2; or the successful scaling up of carbon capture by a global hoover. There are no other options. (Obvs maximal greening is also essential - that's a given).
We know there were much higher levels of CO2 in the past but there wasn't a complex human civilisation with more than seven billion souls and that's the problem.
The ability of our civilisation and indeed all life to adapt to climate change is the issue, not the fact of it or even the intensity. 85% of the world lives in the Northern Hemisphere so that's where we need to start and we also need to look at how many live close to the sea IF sea level rises (which haven't yet developed as some thought) or more ferocious storms (the evidence for that is more complex) become a way of life.
I've always believed in human ingenuity and the power of that ingenuity to solve any problem and I'm optimistic in the longer term we will find ways to mitigate the worst of climate change but I fear in the short to medium term there will be some serious if not catastrophic events.
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
I think this is backwards. Once you max out the grid with renewables, you probably have times when you have lots of surplus energy that you can use for carbon capture. Assuming you're still making things like concrete and glass you'll be producing CO2 even if their energy source is totally renewable, so if you're serious about net zero you need to be doing carbon capture.
The argument against carbon capture is that the whole idea that the UK is going to get to Net Zero is fake, and it'll be using loads of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, in which case you'd be better spending the money chipping away at that.
There appear be two incompatible arguments in principle against carbon capture. Firstly net zero is a massive hoax as you have said. Secondly we shouldn't be doing CO2 under any circumstances so there's no carbon to capture. It is true on the second point that carbon capture is heavily promoted by the fossil fuel lobby. The suggestion Ed Miliband is a green zealot on this is misplaced.
A potential argument could be carbon capture is a good idea in principle but not cost effective. We're not getting to that argument. We're stuck on square 1.
Indiscreet stories tend to be posted on threads on forums on places like digital spy these days. Anonymous and fascinating who is nice and who isn’t (Cilla 😵)
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
I think this is backwards. Once you max out the grid with renewables, you probably have times when you have lots of surplus energy that you can use for carbon capture. Assuming you're still making things like concrete and glass you'll be producing CO2 even if their energy source is totally renewable, so if you're serious about net zero you need to be doing carbon capture.
The argument against carbon capture is that the whole idea that the UK is going to get to Net Zero is fake, and it'll be using loads of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, in which case you'd be better spending the money chipping away at that.
Glass just needs energy as an input. Ultra cheap solar + storage. Interestingly, given that glass is “floated” on bath of molten tin, you could use molten tin as an energy store for the solar…
Concrete may be dealt with by different chemistry. There are even some chemistries that are being looked at, that are net *consumers* of CO2.
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
This illustrates the problem not the solution. Let is assume the 'science' is correct and includes the real possibility we are doomed bigly if CO2 continues to rise.
It doesn't matter if there are reductions in CO2 emissions (so far there aren't by the way). CO2 is going to carry on being emitted for the long term future. A complete turnaround isn't on any horizon.
This adds, at whatever speed, to the CO2 already there. It's like debt. Lowering the amount you borrow further sounds good but still increases the debt.
This means that unless carbon capture works, if we could be doomed, we are doomed.
The only chances we have are: actually we aren't doomed despite CO2; or the successful scaling up of carbon capture by a global hoover. There are no other options. (Obvs maximal greening is also essential - that's a given).
Empress trees are the most efficient plants at capturing carbon per acre, absorbing over 100 tons per acre per year.
There are nearly 20 million acres in Scotland so that's about 2,000 million tons of carbon removed from the atmosphere per year. The UK currently emits about 400 million tons of carbon a year. Job done. Thanks you Scotland.
This only applies whilst the tree is growing, once mature its carbon capture is, to use a term, net zero. The only real way the mass planting of trees is anything other than cosmetic is to plant them, grow them, cut them down when at the point they are more or less neutral, and importantly preserve them, probably through treating them and then burial , rinse and repeat.
Remember, only growing trees consume more carbon through photosynthesis than they release during respiration. The carbon cycle you were told at school was a dumbed down bit of science to get across what photosynthesis is.
I like the idea of creating vast stores of buried wood matter, underground. Bury it deep. Perhaps a future civilisation might find of use.
I've just bet £50 at 23/20 (boosted) with Ladbrokes that Starmer will not be PM going into the next election.
He'd have to resign, there's no practical way for Labour MPs to remove a leader as we saw with Corbyn after losing in 2017. I don't think Starmer has got the self awareness to realise he's not very popular. Lawyers tend not to have that capability.
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
This illustrates the problem not the solution. Let is assume the 'science' is correct and includes the real possibility we are doomed bigly if CO2 continues to rise.
It doesn't matter if there are reductions in CO2 emissions (so far there aren't by the way). CO2 is going to carry on being emitted for the long term future. A complete turnaround isn't on any horizon.
This adds, at whatever speed, to the CO2 already there. It's like debt. Lowering the amount you borrow further sounds good but still increases the debt.
This means that unless carbon capture works, if we could be doomed, we are doomed.
The only chances we have are: actually we aren't doomed despite CO2; or the successful scaling up of carbon capture by a global hoover. There are no other options. (Obvs maximal greening is also essential - that's a given).
Empress trees are the most efficient plants at capturing carbon per acre, absorbing over 100 tons per acre per year.
There are nearly 20 million acres in Scotland so that's about 2,000 million tons of carbon removed from the atmosphere per year. The UK currently emits about 400 million tons of carbon a year. Job done. Thanks you Scotland.
This only applies whilst the tree is growing, once mature its carbon capture is, to use a term, net zero. The only real way the mass planting of trees is anything other than cosmetic is to plant them, grow them, cut them down when at the point they are more or less neutral, and importantly preserve them, probably through treating them and then burial , rinse and repeat.
Remember, only growing trees consume more carbon through photosynthesis than they release during respiration. The carbon cycle you were told at school was a dumbed down bit of science to get across what photosynthesis is.
Yes, I think expanding forestry cover has a one off carbon benefit, but with existing forests the most viable permanent option is charcoal production for integrating into soil.
I've just bet £50 at 23/20 (boosted) with Ladbrokes that Starmer will not be PM going into the next election.
I think he may well step down prior to the GE in order to refresh the party, and he is getting rather old, but I don't think those odds very good value. It is very hard to unseat a sitting Labour leader, so your bet is effectively on Starmer dying or voluntarily stepping down. Politicians are by nature rather vain, so reluctant to go gracefully.
The odds aren't brilliant, and normally I wouldn't make a bet like this, but seeing how badly the man has done in 100 days and now terrible he looks now.. my instincts are he becomes very unpopular, he ends up hating the job, and he doesn't fight another election.
What odds did you get? I don’t understand 23/20. Is that literally 23/20 in old money
As in: nearly evens?
Yes, it's just over evens.
A 47% chance he's not PM at the next election.
Poor odds I have to say. Except that… the bookies can read the rumours just like anyone else. That might account for their skepticism that he will last the course
And now you have the added imprimatur of @Roger’s disapproval, a man so stupid he cannot walk and eat crisps at the same time
Bad odds. But.you're certain to win
Neither May, Boris, Truss (zero) or Sunak fought more than one election. The last to do two was Cameron.
His landslide majority is a chimera. What matters will be his polling, which I expect will become dire.
The interesting thing is that the Tories have already bounced back in the local election by-elections.
My assumption had been that, if Starmer, Reeves and Labour crashed and burned quickly, before the Tories sorted themselves out, that it would create an opening for Reform or Lib Dems, because the voters would be looking for an alternative to both parties.
Now I'm not so sure. If the voters become desperate to get rid of Labour then only the Tories are a realistic alternative government. Reform and Lib Dems may have missed their chance to eclipse the Tories already.
I think "bounce back" is overstating it somewhat.
The Conservatives bounced back after 1997 - indeed, in the local elections on the day of the GE, they made significant gains and in 1999 won back 1300 of the 2000 seats they had lost in 1995. It made no difference in 2001.
Yes, you can argue the scale of gains made by the Conservatives in years like 1968 and 1977 presaged a change of Government but we are nowhere near that currently. Indeed, the Conservatives lost a seat to the LDs last Thursday and other parties (Greens, Reform, Independents) have all made gains from Labour while Labour has also held seats which, were there a strong pro-Conservative tide, they would have lost.
What we are seeing is the motivated Conservative vote turning out - the loyal Tory vote which always votes. On the other side, those who were motivated to vote against the Conservatives when they were in Government are staying at home now the Conservatives have been removed.
Thus, a Ward which might have voted 500-300 against the Conservatives when the latter were in Government now votes 250-300 (making it a Conservative gain on a big increase in vote share). Don't look at vote shares - look at vote numbers and turnouts.
I've just bet £50 at 23/20 (boosted) with Ladbrokes that Starmer will not be PM going into the next election.
I think you will win but 23/20 is not a tempting price to have your stake money tied up until 2029. You'd get a better return from Sunak & Hunt's British Bonds.
Trump clearly wasn't / isn't an asshat 24/7. He wouldn't have managed to be part of the elite set for so many years or for the Apprentice to run for what 14 seasons.
What Trump is a spoiled rich kid from New York who is most likely a narcissist.
You well play nice with him and he gets want he wants, I am sure he perfectly pleasant*. The I'm the best, the richest, etc, it is that classic NYC wiseguy serial boaster / bullshitter, see 80s stock traders.
Where things nasty is if you don't do what he says or even worse try to prevent him from getting what he wants or cross him. Its like saying no to toddler when they are in cereal aisle.
* I watched a bit of JRE, and Rogan don't push him very hard and after all the BSing about tariffs etc, they have a perfectly nice chat about things like MMA, where he asks sensible questions and listens to Rogan talk about his specialist subject.
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
This illustrates the problem not the solution. Let is assume the 'science' is correct and includes the real possibility we are doomed bigly if CO2 continues to rise.
It doesn't matter if there are reductions in CO2 emissions (so far there aren't by the way). CO2 is going to carry on being emitted for the long term future. A complete turnaround isn't on any horizon.
This adds, at whatever speed, to the CO2 already there. It's like debt. Lowering the amount you borrow further sounds good but still increases the debt.
This means that unless carbon capture works, if we could be doomed, we are doomed.
The only chances we have are: actually we aren't doomed despite CO2; or the successful scaling up of carbon capture by a global hoover. There are no other options. (Obvs maximal greening is also essential - that's a given).
Empress trees are the most efficient plants at capturing carbon per acre, absorbing over 100 tons per acre per year.
There are nearly 20 million acres in Scotland so that's about 2,000 million tons of carbon removed from the atmosphere per year. The UK currently emits about 400 million tons of carbon a year. Job done. Thanks you Scotland.
This only applies whilst the tree is growing, once mature its carbon capture is, to use a term, net zero. The only real way the mass planting of trees is anything other than cosmetic is to plant them, grow them, cut them down when at the point they are more or less neutral, and importantly preserve them, probably through treating them and then burial , rinse and repeat.
Remember, only growing trees consume more carbon through photosynthesis than they release during respiration. The carbon cycle you were told at school was a dumbed down bit of science to get across what photosynthesis is.
I like the idea of creating vast stores of buried wood matter, underground. Bury it deep. Perhaps a future civilisation might find of use.
I think Bill Gates foundation has been exploring its feasibility at scale. Of course we are pretty much replicating how the earth acquired the atmosphere balance it currently has. We had trees for millions of years before organisms that could break the trees down had evolved.
I very much doubt that Plan A involved him becoming Prime Minister. More likely it was that he's just having cleaned up the party, moved them on a bit but lost. That he became PM is a function of the repeated pratfalls by the last lot.
He's not getting any younger, and the job takes it out of a man- look at Johnson or Sunak. I reckon his plan B is to win in 2028 and retire in 2030. Whether that works or not is not yet for ours to see.
Plan C would be to do a Biden in 2028 or so; step down with a medical chitty and hand over to someone younger and smiler.
50:50 chance that he goes early? I wouldn't put it that high, but it's certainly not a low chance. What really kills these odds for me is that the return might be more than four years away. You can get a decent lower-risk return in that time.
The other factor, there isn't an obvious replacement at the moment.
Ah, that's when Starmer tearfully does the walk of shame to the Palace and advises the King to call for Badenoch/Farage/Truss/Johnson/the exhumed remains of Lady Thatcher.
But yes, the thing to watch is who gets promoted at the mid-term reshuffle
Your point about Starmer not being the intended Prime Minister is one I've heard before. What I've heard is that Starmer was meant to be a transitional LOTO, getting rid of all the lefties and losing well, before Wes Streeting took over and won the next election. It sort of makes sense. One could not have expected Boris's entire majority to be gone at a stroke.
That would explain why a leader with very deep flaws, both in character and circumstances, is now PM, and why every day is a constant mess. Wes Streeting won't now be able to take over - he is a 'good time' successor LOTO, not an emergency steady the ship PM.
It has its lessons for the Tory Party too - people saying the Tories need a good LOTO not an alternative PM and programme for Government are talking nonsense I'm afraid. You never know when you'll be called to govern.
Streeting was the Blairite candidate, Starmer the Brownite candidate.
Streeting is also I think Labour's most electable alternative to Starmer if he is removed, compared to Rayner, Lammy no contest and he also has the charisma Reeves and Cooper don't even if the latter might be safe pairs of hands
I've just bet £50 at 23/20 (boosted) with Ladbrokes that Starmer will not be PM going into the next election.
He'd have to resign, there's no practical way for Labour MPs to remove a leader as we saw with Corbyn after losing in 2017. I don't think Starmer has got the self awareness to realise he's not very popular. Lawyers tend not to have that capability.
Heaven forfend this is a comment about our illustrious editor?
In fact, rather than hate him, I'm now starting to pity him.
It is quite painful to watch someone flounder so badly, with no obvious prospect of improvement. He’s 61 - and really looking it now - fat and sad
What’s he gonna be like in five years??!
I really wonder if he will stay the course. He looks miserable as well as obese
It’s early days so he still has a chance to turn it around. This weeks budget is an important step towards that.
However he just comes over as totally unsuited to the role, just like like Sunak.
An over promoted middle Manager.
Leaving aside the politics I would say Starmer has been OK so far in the job he's appointed to do of running the country. Probably Cameron level. Which isn't a high bar admittedly, but does mean he's an improvement on all four of his predecessors. If he avoids Cameron's big mistakes, Starmer has the possibility of being better than him too.
He's comfortable making decisions, unlike his predecessors - Starmer has made far more decisions in three months than Sunak managed in two years. The decisions have been reasonable ones given the problems they try to solve. In most cases they were taken after his predecessor failed to decide and was just playing for time.
Starmer's big problem in my view is rebuilding trust in politics. I'm not sure he's capable of that. The previous government left the country in a bad state and wore people out with its endless psychodramas. Starmer needs people to think, it's going to be OK
What decisions has Starmer made?
I'm thinking eg public sector wage settlements and Chagos where the previous government failed to make a decision. Winter Fuel Payment, which a future Conservative government certainly won't overturn.
There's been quite a lot of other significant things which haven't had any attention. For example a new defence pact with Germany.
I didn't see much evidence John Major or Rishi Sunak enjoyed being Prime Minister in their last 12 months - I don't suppose it was much "fun" for James Callaghan either.
That didn't mean they were all heading for the door (despite all the pleas and protestations they should go).
Most Prime Ministers have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No.10 whether by the electorate or the "men in grey suits". Even Boris Johnson now regrets giving in to the likes of Sir Graham Brady and thinks he should have held out.
No, Starmer will see it out unless there is a monumental scandal or a health issue - the last PM to leave in any way voluntarily was Wilson in 1976 (though there seem all sorts of theories about that). Absent either of those he will be the Prime Minister and Labour leader at the next election - whether he wins re-election or not is another matter.
I've just bet £50 at 23/20 (boosted) with Ladbrokes that Starmer will not be PM going into the next election.
I think he may well step down prior to the GE in order to refresh the party, and he is getting rather old, but I don't think those odds very good value. It is very hard to unseat a sitting Labour leader, so your bet is effectively on Starmer dying or voluntarily stepping down. Politicians are by nature rather vain, so reluctant to go gracefully.
The odds aren't brilliant, and normally I wouldn't make a bet like this, but seeing how badly the man has done in 100 days and now terrible he looks now.. my instincts are he becomes very unpopular, he ends up hating the job, and he doesn't fight another election.
What odds did you get? I don’t understand 23/20. Is that literally 23/20 in old money
As in: nearly evens?
Yes, it's just over evens.
A 47% chance he's not PM at the next election.
Poor odds I have to say. Except that… the bookies can read the rumours just like anyone else. That might account for their skepticism that he will last the course
And now you have the added imprimatur of @Roger’s disapproval, a man so stupid he cannot walk and eat crisps at the same time
Bad odds. But.you're certain to win
Neither May, Boris, Truss (zero) or Sunak fought more than one election. The last to do two was Cameron.
His landslide majority is a chimera. What matters will be his polling, which I expect will become dire.
The interesting thing is that the Tories have already bounced back in the local election by-elections.
My assumption had been that, if Starmer, Reeves and Labour crashed and burned quickly, before the Tories sorted themselves out, that it would create an opening for Reform or Lib Dems, because the voters would be looking for an alternative to both parties.
Now I'm not so sure. If the voters become desperate to get rid of Labour then only the Tories are a realistic alternative government. Reform and Lib Dems may have missed their chance to eclipse the Tories already.
The main shift since the GE has been Labour to Reform, the LDs and Tories unchanged in most polls.
I've just bet £50 at 23/20 (boosted) with Ladbrokes that Starmer will not be PM going into the next election.
He'd have to resign, there's no practical way for Labour MPs to remove a leader as we saw with Corbyn after losing in 2017. I don't think Starmer has got the self awareness to realise he's not very popular. Lawyers tend not to have that capability.
Popular or not, I expect Starmer to resign around the time of the next election anyway. This was never his first love: he is a lawyer first and politician second. Starmer is already in his 60s, and thus older than most recent Prime Ministers. It is a good bet at a terrible price.
I very much doubt that Plan A involved him becoming Prime Minister. More likely it was that he's just having cleaned up the party, moved them on a bit but lost. That he became PM is a function of the repeated pratfalls by the last lot.
He's not getting any younger, and the job takes it out of a man- look at Johnson or Sunak. I reckon his plan B is to win in 2028 and retire in 2030. Whether that works or not is not yet for ours to see.
Plan C would be to do a Biden in 2028 or so; step down with a medical chitty and hand over to someone younger and smiler.
50:50 chance that he goes early? I wouldn't put it that high, but it's certainly not a low chance. What really kills these odds for me is that the return might be more than four years away. You can get a decent lower-risk return in that time.
The other factor, there isn't an obvious replacement at the moment.
Ah, that's when Starmer tearfully does the walk of shame to the Palace and advises the King to call for Badenoch/Farage/Truss/Johnson/the exhumed remains of Lady Thatcher.
But yes, the thing to watch is who gets promoted at the mid-term reshuffle
Your point about Starmer not being the intended Prime Minister is one I've heard before. What I've heard is that Starmer was meant to be a transitional LOTO, getting rid of all the lefties and losing well, before Wes Streeting took over and won the next election. It sort of makes sense. One could not have expected Boris's entire majority to be gone at a stroke.
That would explain why a leader with very deep flaws, both in character and circumstances, is now PM, and why every day is a constant mess. Wes Streeting won't now be able to take over - he is a 'good time' successor LOTO, not an emergency steady the ship PM.
It has its lessons for the Tory Party too - people saying the Tories need a good LOTO not an alternative PM and programme for Government are talking nonsense I'm afraid. You never know when you'll be called to govern.
Streeting was the Blairite candidate, Starmer the Brownite candidate.
Streeting is also I think Labour's most electable alternative to Starmer if he is removed, compared to Rayner, Lammy no contest and he also has the charisma Reeves and Cooper don't even if the latter might be safe pairs of hands
He does, but the one to take over from Starmer now will have to be a safe, boring caretaker. That's not Streeting. In normal circumstances, he'd have been a shoe in. Starmer’s exit won't be normal in my opinion.
I didn't see much evidence John Major or Rishi Sunak enjoyed being Prime Minister in their last 12 months - I don't suppose it was much "fun" for James Callaghan either.
That didn't mean they were all heading for the door (despite all the pleas and protestations they should go).
Most Prime Ministers have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No.10 whether by the electorate or the "men in grey suits". Even Boris Johnson now regrets giving in to the likes of Sir Graham Brady and thinks he should have held out.
No, Starmer will see it out unless there is a monumental scandal or a health issue - the last PM to leave in any way voluntarily was Wilson in 1976 (though there seem all sorts of theories about that). Absent either of those he will be the Prime Minister and Labour leader at the next election - whether he wins re-election or not is another matter.
He's already lost Leon's and Taz's votes, so it's looking like a walkover for um... maybe Farage.
I very much doubt that Plan A involved him becoming Prime Minister. More likely it was that he's just having cleaned up the party, moved them on a bit but lost. That he became PM is a function of the repeated pratfalls by the last lot.
He's not getting any younger, and the job takes it out of a man- look at Johnson or Sunak. I reckon his plan B is to win in 2028 and retire in 2030. Whether that works or not is not yet for ours to see.
Plan C would be to do a Biden in 2028 or so; step down with a medical chitty and hand over to someone younger and smiler.
50:50 chance that he goes early? I wouldn't put it that high, but it's certainly not a low chance. What really kills these odds for me is that the return might be more than four years away. You can get a decent lower-risk return in that time.
The other factor, there isn't an obvious replacement at the moment.
Ah, that's when Starmer tearfully does the walk of shame to the Palace and advises the King to call for Badenoch/Farage/Truss/Johnson/the exhumed remains of Lady Thatcher.
But yes, the thing to watch is who gets promoted at the mid-term reshuffle
Your point about Starmer not being the intended Prime Minister is one I've heard before. What I've heard is that Starmer was meant to be a transitional LOTO, getting rid of all the lefties and losing well, before Wes Streeting took over and won the next election. It sort of makes sense. One could not have expected Boris's entire majority to be gone at a stroke.
That would explain why a leader with very deep flaws, both in character and circumstances, is now PM, and why every day is a constant mess. Wes Streeting won't now be able to take over - he is a 'good time' successor LOTO, not an emergency steady the ship PM.
It has its lessons for the Tory Party too - people saying the Tories need a good LOTO not an alternative PM and programme for Government are talking nonsense I'm afraid. You never know when you'll be called to govern.
Streeting was the Blairite candidate, Starmer the Brownite candidate.
Streeting is also I think Labour's most electable alternative to Starmer if he is removed, compared to Rayner, Lammy no contest and he also has the charisma Reeves and Cooper don't even if the latter might be safe pairs of hands
Won’t Labour be compelled, or at least feel compelled, to have a woman leader next time round. Especially if the Tories elect Badenoch as leader. They’ve been criticised both externally and internally for a lack of a woman leader.
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
This illustrates the problem not the solution. Let is assume the 'science' is correct and includes the real possibility we are doomed bigly if CO2 continues to rise.
It doesn't matter if there are reductions in CO2 emissions (so far there aren't by the way). CO2 is going to carry on being emitted for the long term future. A complete turnaround isn't on any horizon.
This adds, at whatever speed, to the CO2 already there. It's like debt. Lowering the amount you borrow further sounds good but still increases the debt.
This means that unless carbon capture works, if we could be doomed, we are doomed.
The only chances we have are: actually we aren't doomed despite CO2; or the successful scaling up of carbon capture by a global hoover. There are no other options. (Obvs maximal greening is also essential - that's a given).
Empress trees are the most efficient plants at capturing carbon per acre, absorbing over 100 tons per acre per year.
There are nearly 20 million acres in Scotland so that's about 2,000 million tons of carbon removed from the atmosphere per year. The UK currently emits about 400 million tons of carbon a year. Job done. Thanks you Scotland.
There are all sorts of complications with that, of course . I hope you don't mind a detailed reply - I used to do work vaguely in this topic area. It may come out well, or not.
1 - How do you extend the sequestration beyond the life of the tree? What can Paulownia wood grown in the UK be used for? If it is a timber species for construction (a suitable conifer or hardwood), then having it in the structure of a building keeps the carbon captive for another 50-100 years. That increases the length of carbon emissions buffer created.
2 - How does Paulownia behave in the UK? Checking, it grows best in temperatures of 24-33C, and starts growing at soil temperatures of 16C or above afaics. That's not really a long growing season in Scotland, or anywhere in the UK where average soil temperatures 1m down are more like 10-12C.
A Paulownia here will grow to more like 12-15m max, rather than 25-30m max. Applying volume, 1/2 the height means approx 1/8 the volume or mass. Or double if you assume constant mass density per unit volume in a forest.
What is it's actual comparative performance in Scotland with eg the faster growing construction-suitable timbers?
3 - How does Paulownia behave in wet-temperate climates such as the UK? What about soil type?
4 - It would be a new monoculture. We've learnt all about the problems of those in the UK over the last 100 years.
5 - In environmental terms, sequestration is actually what's called a "tailpipe solution". It is better to reduce energy use as far as possible, and decarbonise supply, so we need both less power (fewer windmills, solar panels, power stations, or enormous concrete cylinders built in our estuaries) and fewer, smaller methods to sequester carbon.
We have done fairly well at that, and our average trade weighted carbon emissions are not that far above world average. Still some way to go.
6 Given climate etc, it might actually be more carbon-efficient to grow Paulownias in eg Italy then pay the carbon cost of shipping them here .
7 - Might something like creating peat bogs perform better? They fit the Scottish climate.
Fpt Bloody hell, I know 24/7 royal PR is SOP for the Beeb, but it’s in fawning overdrive today. The doctors are looking after Chuck’s physical health but it’s his sense of duty that is keeping his mind and spirit in fine fettle apparently. It seems that we need to know this at the top of every news bulletin, on the hour.
The BBC has been inextricably infected by royal derangement syndrome for decades, and it’s getting worse.
What little I saw from Samoa was the king looking old and frail. It's good to know that his health is improving, but it's rather cruel to expect such an old man to carry out multiple duties.
If we are to keep a monarchy, we should have a retirement age so that we have monarchs who are well enough for the rigours of the role. It is done in other monarchies, so not a threat to the role.
But our monarchy (with the possible exception of Japan) seems to be the last one that demands that a kind of holy mystique be attached to it, literally holy since they bung the CoE into the mix. Such a prosaic concept as a retirement age would finish the mystique (such as it is) off. Since the next one in line seems to be a slightly dim middle manager with a pushy wife, perhaps that’ll do the finishing off anyway.
What a load of crap.
Compared to Starmer, Badenoch, Jenrick, Farage, Davey and Swinney Wills and Kate would be like the British JFK and Jackie.
The King is also younger than Biden and Trump
But you're a baptised fully signed up member of the cult.
Look at the polling, William has a net favourable rating of +59%, Kate a net rating of +61%.
I very much doubt that Plan A involved him becoming Prime Minister. More likely it was that he's just having cleaned up the party, moved them on a bit but lost. That he became PM is a function of the repeated pratfalls by the last lot.
He's not getting any younger, and the job takes it out of a man- look at Johnson or Sunak. I reckon his plan B is to win in 2028 and retire in 2030. Whether that works or not is not yet for ours to see.
Plan C would be to do a Biden in 2028 or so; step down with a medical chitty and hand over to someone younger and smiler.
50:50 chance that he goes early? I wouldn't put it that high, but it's certainly not a low chance. What really kills these odds for me is that the return might be more than four years away. You can get a decent lower-risk return in that time.
The other factor, there isn't an obvious replacement at the moment.
Ah, that's when Starmer tearfully does the walk of shame to the Palace and advises the King to call for Badenoch/Farage/Truss/Johnson/the exhumed remains of Lady Thatcher.
But yes, the thing to watch is who gets promoted at the mid-term reshuffle
Your point about Starmer not being the intended Prime Minister is one I've heard before. What I've heard is that Starmer was meant to be a transitional LOTO, getting rid of all the lefties and losing well, before Wes Streeting took over and won the next election. It sort of makes sense. One could not have expected Boris's entire majority to be gone at a stroke.
That would explain why a leader with very deep flaws, both in character and circumstances, is now PM, and why every day is a constant mess. Wes Streeting won't now be able to take over - he is a 'good time' successor LOTO, not an emergency steady the ship PM.
It has its lessons for the Tory Party too - people saying the Tories need a good LOTO not an alternative PM and programme for Government are talking nonsense I'm afraid. You never know when you'll be called to govern.
Streeting was the Blairite candidate, Starmer the Brownite candidate.
Streeting is also I think Labour's most electable alternative to Starmer if he is removed, compared to Rayner, Lammy no contest and he also has the charisma Reeves and Cooper don't even if the latter might be safe pairs of hands
Won’t Labour be compelled, or at least feel compelled, to have a woman leader next time round. Especially if the Tories elect Badenoch as leader. They’ve been criticised both externally and internally for a lack of a woman leader.
Does the next leader have to be female? Does a gay white man float your boat? Streeting?
I've just bet £50 at 23/20 (boosted) with Ladbrokes that Starmer will not be PM going into the next election.
He'd have to resign, there's no practical way for Labour MPs to remove a leader as we saw with Corbyn after losing in 2017. I don't think Starmer has got the self awareness to realise he's not very popular. Lawyers tend not to have that capability.
Popular or not, I expect Starmer to resign around the time of the next election anyway. This was never his first love: he is a lawyer first and politician second. Starmer is already in his 60s, and thus older than most recent Prime Ministers. It is a good bet at a terrible price.
That’s a good point about the age of the PM. If Starmer completes five years in office, he’ll be the oldest serving PM since Callaghan.
I didn't see much evidence John Major or Rishi Sunak enjoyed being Prime Minister in their last 12 months - I don't suppose it was much "fun" for James Callaghan either.
That didn't mean they were all heading for the door (despite all the pleas and protestations they should go).
Most Prime Ministers have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No.10 whether by the electorate or the "men in grey suits". Even Boris Johnson now regrets giving in to the likes of Sir Graham Brady and thinks he should have held out.
No, Starmer will see it out unless there is a monumental scandal or a health issue - the last PM to leave in any way voluntarily was Wilson in 1976 (though there seem all sorts of theories about that). Absent either of those he will be the Prime Minister and Labour leader at the next election - whether he wins re-election or not is another matter.
He's already lost Leon's and Taz's votes, so it's looking like a walkover for um... maybe Farage.
Only a third of labour voters, on recent polling, are pleased with their performance to date so we are not alone. Unlike Leon I can be won back, like many others I suspect, and Don’t worry, he still has you to shill for him here, when you show your face that is and when you’re not having Leon wipe the floor with you, as he did the other night or you’re not flouncing because people are being nasty about labour 😂😂😂😂
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
This illustrates the problem not the solution. Let is assume the 'science' is correct and includes the real possibility we are doomed bigly if CO2 continues to rise.
It doesn't matter if there are reductions in CO2 emissions (so far there aren't by the way). CO2 is going to carry on being emitted for the long term future. A complete turnaround isn't on any horizon.
This adds, at whatever speed, to the CO2 already there. It's like debt. Lowering the amount you borrow further sounds good but still increases the debt.
This means that unless carbon capture works, if we could be doomed, we are doomed.
The only chances we have are: actually we aren't doomed despite CO2; or the successful scaling up of carbon capture by a global hoover. There are no other options. (Obvs maximal greening is also essential - that's a given).
Empress trees are the most efficient plants at capturing carbon per acre, absorbing over 100 tons per acre per year.
There are nearly 20 million acres in Scotland so that's about 2,000 million tons of carbon removed from the atmosphere per year. The UK currently emits about 400 million tons of carbon a year. Job done. Thanks you Scotland.
This only applies whilst the tree is growing, once mature its carbon capture is, to use a term, net zero. The only real way the mass planting of trees is anything other than cosmetic is to plant them, grow them, cut them down when at the point they are more or less neutral, and importantly preserve them, probably through treating them and then burial , rinse and repeat.
Remember, only growing trees consume more carbon through photosynthesis than they release during respiration. The carbon cycle you were told at school was a dumbed down bit of science to get across what photosynthesis is.
I like the idea of creating vast stores of buried wood matter, underground. Bury it deep. Perhaps a future civilisation might find of use.
I think Bill Gates foundation has been exploring its feasibility at scale. Of course we are pretty much replicating how the earth acquired the atmosphere balance it currently has. We had trees for millions of years before organisms that could break the trees down had evolved.
Fpt Bloody hell, I know 24/7 royal PR is SOP for the Beeb, but it’s in fawning overdrive today. The doctors are looking after Chuck’s physical health but it’s his sense of duty that is keeping his mind and spirit in fine fettle apparently. It seems that we need to know this at the top of every news bulletin, on the hour.
The BBC has been inextricably infected by royal derangement syndrome for decades, and it’s getting worse.
What little I saw from Samoa was the king looking old and frail. It's good to know that his health is improving, but it's rather cruel to expect such an old man to carry out multiple duties.
If we are to keep a monarchy, we should have a retirement age so that we have monarchs who are well enough for the rigours of the role. It is done in other monarchies, so not a threat to the role.
But our monarchy (with the possible exception of Japan) seems to be the last one that demands that a kind of holy mystique be attached to it, literally holy since they bung the CoE into the mix. Such a prosaic concept as a retirement age would finish the mystique (such as it is) off. Since the next one in line seems to be a slightly dim middle manager with a pushy wife, perhaps that’ll do the finishing off anyway.
What a load of crap.
Compared to Starmer, Badenoch, Jenrick, Farage, Davey and Swinney Wills and Kate would be like the British JFK and Jackie.
The King is also younger than Biden and Trump
But you're a baptised fully signed up member of the cult.
Look at the polling, William has a net favourable rating of +59%, Kate a net rating of +61%.
You'd think then on that basis they'd ask the state broadcaster to stop continually arsecrawling them, out of embarassment apart from anything else. Or perhaps the two are connected?
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
This illustrates the problem not the solution. Let is assume the 'science' is correct and includes the real possibility we are doomed bigly if CO2 continues to rise.
It doesn't matter if there are reductions in CO2 emissions (so far there aren't by the way). CO2 is going to carry on being emitted for the long term future. A complete turnaround isn't on any horizon.
This adds, at whatever speed, to the CO2 already there. It's like debt. Lowering the amount you borrow further sounds good but still increases the debt.
This means that unless carbon capture works, if we could be doomed, we are doomed.
The only chances we have are: actually we aren't doomed despite CO2; or the successful scaling up of carbon capture by a global hoover. There are no other options. (Obvs maximal greening is also essential - that's a given).
Empress trees are the most efficient plants at capturing carbon per acre, absorbing over 100 tons per acre per year.
There are nearly 20 million acres in Scotland so that's about 2,000 million tons of carbon removed from the atmosphere per year. The UK currently emits about 400 million tons of carbon a year. Job done. Thanks you Scotland.
This only applies whilst the tree is growing, once mature its carbon capture is, to use a term, net zero. The only real way the mass planting of trees is anything other than cosmetic is to plant them, grow them, cut them down when at the point they are more or less neutral, and importantly preserve them, probably through treating them and then burial , rinse and repeat.
Remember, only growing trees consume more carbon through photosynthesis than they release during respiration. The carbon cycle you were told at school was a dumbed down bit of science to get across what photosynthesis is.
I like the idea of creating vast stores of buried wood matter, underground. Bury it deep. Perhaps a future civilisation might find of use.
I think Bill Gates foundation has been exploring its feasibility at scale. Of course we are pretty much replicating how the earth acquired the atmosphere balance it currently has. We had trees for millions of years before organisms that could break the trees down had evolved.
I very much doubt that Plan A involved him becoming Prime Minister. More likely it was that he's just having cleaned up the party, moved them on a bit but lost. That he became PM is a function of the repeated pratfalls by the last lot.
He's not getting any younger, and the job takes it out of a man- look at Johnson or Sunak. I reckon his plan B is to win in 2028 and retire in 2030. Whether that works or not is not yet for ours to see.
Plan C would be to do a Biden in 2028 or so; step down with a medical chitty and hand over to someone younger and smiler.
50:50 chance that he goes early? I wouldn't put it that high, but it's certainly not a low chance. What really kills these odds for me is that the return might be more than four years away. You can get a decent lower-risk return in that time.
The other factor, there isn't an obvious replacement at the moment.
Ah, that's when Starmer tearfully does the walk of shame to the Palace and advises the King to call for Badenoch/Farage/Truss/Johnson/the exhumed remains of Lady Thatcher.
But yes, the thing to watch is who gets promoted at the mid-term reshuffle
Your point about Starmer not being the intended Prime Minister is one I've heard before. What I've heard is that Starmer was meant to be a transitional LOTO, getting rid of all the lefties and losing well, before Wes Streeting took over and won the next election. It sort of makes sense. One could not have expected Boris's entire majority to be gone at a stroke.
That would explain why a leader with very deep flaws, both in character and circumstances, is now PM, and why every day is a constant mess. Wes Streeting won't now be able to take over - he is a 'good time' successor LOTO, not an emergency steady the ship PM.
It has its lessons for the Tory Party too - people saying the Tories need a good LOTO not an alternative PM and programme for Government are talking nonsense I'm afraid. You never know when you'll be called to govern.
Streeting was the Blairite candidate, Starmer the Brownite candidate.
Streeting is also I think Labour's most electable alternative to Starmer if he is removed, compared to Rayner, Lammy no contest and he also has the charisma Reeves and Cooper don't even if the latter might be safe pairs of hands
Won’t Labour be compelled, or at least feel compelled, to have a woman leader next time round. Especially if the Tories elect Badenoch as leader. They’ve been criticised both externally and internally for a lack of a woman leader.
Being a woman doesn't automatically make you electable see Liz Truss or Hillary Clinton or Julia Gillard or Segolene Royale and Valerie Pecresse or maybe Kamala Harris
I very much doubt that Plan A involved him becoming Prime Minister. More likely it was that he's just having cleaned up the party, moved them on a bit but lost. That he became PM is a function of the repeated pratfalls by the last lot.
He's not getting any younger, and the job takes it out of a man- look at Johnson or Sunak. I reckon his plan B is to win in 2028 and retire in 2030. Whether that works or not is not yet for ours to see.
Plan C would be to do a Biden in 2028 or so; step down with a medical chitty and hand over to someone younger and smiler.
50:50 chance that he goes early? I wouldn't put it that high, but it's certainly not a low chance. What really kills these odds for me is that the return might be more than four years away. You can get a decent lower-risk return in that time.
The other factor, there isn't an obvious replacement at the moment.
Ah, that's when Starmer tearfully does the walk of shame to the Palace and advises the King to call for Badenoch/Farage/Truss/Johnson/the exhumed remains of Lady Thatcher.
But yes, the thing to watch is who gets promoted at the mid-term reshuffle
Your point about Starmer not being the intended Prime Minister is one I've heard before. What I've heard is that Starmer was meant to be a transitional LOTO, getting rid of all the lefties and losing well, before Wes Streeting took over and won the next election. It sort of makes sense. One could not have expected Boris's entire majority to be gone at a stroke.
That would explain why a leader with very deep flaws, both in character and circumstances, is now PM, and why every day is a constant mess. Wes Streeting won't now be able to take over - he is a 'good time' successor LOTO, not an emergency steady the ship PM.
It has its lessons for the Tory Party too - people saying the Tories need a good LOTO not an alternative PM and programme for Government are talking nonsense I'm afraid. You never know when you'll be called to govern.
Streeting was the Blairite candidate, Starmer the Brownite candidate.
Streeting is also I think Labour's most electable alternative to Starmer if he is removed, compared to Rayner, Lammy no contest and he also has the charisma Reeves and Cooper don't even if the latter might be safe pairs of hands
He does, but the one to take over from Starmer now will have to be a safe, boring caretaker. That's not Streeting. In normal circumstances, he'd have been a shoe in. Starmer’s exit won't be normal in my opinion.
Not necessarily at all, not least as Starmer already is the safe, boring option. So if he goes that option would be proved to have failed.
Macron replaced safe, boring Hollande as Presidential candidate in power and Macron was far more charismatic than Hollande was
Fpt Bloody hell, I know 24/7 royal PR is SOP for the Beeb, but it’s in fawning overdrive today. The doctors are looking after Chuck’s physical health but it’s his sense of duty that is keeping his mind and spirit in fine fettle apparently. It seems that we need to know this at the top of every news bulletin, on the hour.
The BBC has been inextricably infected by royal derangement syndrome for decades, and it’s getting worse.
What little I saw from Samoa was the king looking old and frail. It's good to know that his health is improving, but it's rather cruel to expect such an old man to carry out multiple duties.
If we are to keep a monarchy, we should have a retirement age so that we have monarchs who are well enough for the rigours of the role. It is done in other monarchies, so not a threat to the role.
But our monarchy (with the possible exception of Japan) seems to be the last one that demands that a kind of holy mystique be attached to it, literally holy since they bung the CoE into the mix. Such a prosaic concept as a retirement age would finish the mystique (such as it is) off. Since the next one in line seems to be a slightly dim middle manager with a pushy wife, perhaps that’ll do the finishing off anyway.
What a load of crap.
Compared to Starmer, Badenoch, Jenrick, Farage, Davey and Swinney Wills and Kate would be like the British JFK and Jackie.
The King is also younger than Biden and Trump
But you're a baptised fully signed up member of the cult.
Look at the polling, William has a net favourable rating of +59%, Kate a net rating of +61%.
You'd think then on that basis they'd ask the state broadcaster to stop continually arsecrawling them, out of embarassment apart from anything else. Or perhaps the two are connected?
They don't, the BBC already give far more coverage to the ridiculous Republic than they should.
I very much doubt that Plan A involved him becoming Prime Minister. More likely it was that he's just having cleaned up the party, moved them on a bit but lost. That he became PM is a function of the repeated pratfalls by the last lot.
He's not getting any younger, and the job takes it out of a man- look at Johnson or Sunak. I reckon his plan B is to win in 2028 and retire in 2030. Whether that works or not is not yet for ours to see.
Plan C would be to do a Biden in 2028 or so; step down with a medical chitty and hand over to someone younger and smiler.
50:50 chance that he goes early? I wouldn't put it that high, but it's certainly not a low chance. What really kills these odds for me is that the return might be more than four years away. You can get a decent lower-risk return in that time.
The other factor, there isn't an obvious replacement at the moment.
Ah, that's when Starmer tearfully does the walk of shame to the Palace and advises the King to call for Badenoch/Farage/Truss/Johnson/the exhumed remains of Lady Thatcher.
But yes, the thing to watch is who gets promoted at the mid-term reshuffle
Your point about Starmer not being the intended Prime Minister is one I've heard before. What I've heard is that Starmer was meant to be a transitional LOTO, getting rid of all the lefties and losing well, before Wes Streeting took over and won the next election. It sort of makes sense. One could not have expected Boris's entire majority to be gone at a stroke.
That would explain why a leader with very deep flaws, both in character and circumstances, is now PM, and why every day is a constant mess. Wes Streeting won't now be able to take over - he is a 'good time' successor LOTO, not an emergency steady the ship PM.
It has its lessons for the Tory Party too - people saying the Tories need a good LOTO not an alternative PM and programme for Government are talking nonsense I'm afraid. You never know when you'll be called to govern.
Streeting was the Blairite candidate, Starmer the Brownite candidate.
Streeting is also I think Labour's most electable alternative to Starmer if he is removed, compared to Rayner, Lammy no contest and he also has the charisma Reeves and Cooper don't even if the latter might be safe pairs of hands
Won’t Labour be compelled, or at least feel compelled, to have a woman leader next time round. Especially if the Tories elect Badenoch as leader. They’ve been criticised both externally and internally for a lack of a woman leader.
Does the next leader have to be female? Does a gay white man float your boat? Streeting?
Why does Labour hate those individuals whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova?
I very much doubt that Plan A involved him becoming Prime Minister. More likely it was that he's just having cleaned up the party, moved them on a bit but lost. That he became PM is a function of the repeated pratfalls by the last lot.
He's not getting any younger, and the job takes it out of a man- look at Johnson or Sunak. I reckon his plan B is to win in 2028 and retire in 2030. Whether that works or not is not yet for ours to see.
Plan C would be to do a Biden in 2028 or so; step down with a medical chitty and hand over to someone younger and smiler.
50:50 chance that he goes early? I wouldn't put it that high, but it's certainly not a low chance. What really kills these odds for me is that the return might be more than four years away. You can get a decent lower-risk return in that time.
The other factor, there isn't an obvious replacement at the moment.
Ah, that's when Starmer tearfully does the walk of shame to the Palace and advises the King to call for Badenoch/Farage/Truss/Johnson/the exhumed remains of Lady Thatcher.
But yes, the thing to watch is who gets promoted at the mid-term reshuffle
Your point about Starmer not being the intended Prime Minister is one I've heard before. What I've heard is that Starmer was meant to be a transitional LOTO, getting rid of all the lefties and losing well, before Wes Streeting took over and won the next election. It sort of makes sense. One could not have expected Boris's entire majority to be gone at a stroke.
That would explain why a leader with very deep flaws, both in character and circumstances, is now PM, and why every day is a constant mess. Wes Streeting won't now be able to take over - he is a 'good time' successor LOTO, not an emergency steady the ship PM.
It has its lessons for the Tory Party too - people saying the Tories need a good LOTO not an alternative PM and programme for Government are talking nonsense I'm afraid. You never know when you'll be called to govern.
Streeting was the Blairite candidate, Starmer the Brownite candidate.
Streeting is also I think Labour's most electable alternative to Starmer if he is removed, compared to Rayner, Lammy no contest and he also has the charisma Reeves and Cooper don't even if the latter might be safe pairs of hands
Won’t Labour be compelled, or at least feel compelled, to have a woman leader next time round. Especially if the Tories elect Badenoch as leader. They’ve been criticised both externally and internally for a lack of a woman leader.
Being a woman doesn't automatically make you electable see Liz Truss or Hillary Clinton or Julia Gillard or Segolene Royale and Valerie Pecresse or maybe Kamala Harris
It’s the difference between “equality” and “equity”.
The former is achieved by encouraging good women to stand for office, the latter by choosing a woman primarily because she is a woman.
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
This illustrates the problem not the solution. Let is assume the 'science' is correct and includes the real possibility we are doomed bigly if CO2 continues to rise.
It doesn't matter if there are reductions in CO2 emissions (so far there aren't by the way). CO2 is going to carry on being emitted for the long term future. A complete turnaround isn't on any horizon.
This adds, at whatever speed, to the CO2 already there. It's like debt. Lowering the amount you borrow further sounds good but still increases the debt.
This means that unless carbon capture works, if we could be doomed, we are doomed.
The only chances we have are: actually we aren't doomed despite CO2; or the successful scaling up of carbon capture by a global hoover. There are no other options. (Obvs maximal greening is also essential - that's a given).
In terms of reducing emissions, it's like paying off your highest interest debts first. That's why switching from coal to gas in the 2010s was probably the most important intervention we have made so far.
Next up is wind, solar, EVs and heat pumps, probably in that order. You'd get an awful lot more carbon out of the atmosphere over 50 years from 5GW of wind power than a speculative effort at CCS (I think 5GW is roughly equivalent to £20 billion).
But, and again I’ll defer to someone with inside knowledge on this, my understanding is that the CCUS play is largely a piece of industrial strategy. It’s giving a nascent industry a guaranteed buyer once it’s off the ground, so that industry can then start selling storage to the world and make money.
It’s not money on the table now but it’s the sort of strategy the US military has successfully used to incubate future aerospace and defence giants.
Who is going to buy ? It seems highly improbable to me, given the advance in other technologies, and the cost of this. And that's without considering the practical objections, which @Richard_Tyndall has previously outlined.
I very much doubt that Plan A involved him becoming Prime Minister. More likely it was that he's just having cleaned up the party, moved them on a bit but lost. That he became PM is a function of the repeated pratfalls by the last lot.
He's not getting any younger, and the job takes it out of a man- look at Johnson or Sunak. I reckon his plan B is to win in 2028 and retire in 2030. Whether that works or not is not yet for ours to see.
Plan C would be to do a Biden in 2028 or so; step down with a medical chitty and hand over to someone younger and smiler.
50:50 chance that he goes early? I wouldn't put it that high, but it's certainly not a low chance. What really kills these odds for me is that the return might be more than four years away. You can get a decent lower-risk return in that time.
The other factor, there isn't an obvious replacement at the moment.
Ah, that's when Starmer tearfully does the walk of shame to the Palace and advises the King to call for Badenoch/Farage/Truss/Johnson/the exhumed remains of Lady Thatcher.
But yes, the thing to watch is who gets promoted at the mid-term reshuffle
Your point about Starmer not being the intended Prime Minister is one I've heard before. What I've heard is that Starmer was meant to be a transitional LOTO, getting rid of all the lefties and losing well, before Wes Streeting took over and won the next election. It sort of makes sense. One could not have expected Boris's entire majority to be gone at a stroke.
That would explain why a leader with very deep flaws, both in character and circumstances, is now PM, and why every day is a constant mess. Wes Streeting won't now be able to take over - he is a 'good time' successor LOTO, not an emergency steady the ship PM.
It has its lessons for the Tory Party too - people saying the Tories need a good LOTO not an alternative PM and programme for Government are talking nonsense I'm afraid. You never know when you'll be called to govern.
Streeting was the Blairite candidate, Starmer the Brownite candidate.
Streeting is also I think Labour's most electable alternative to Starmer if he is removed, compared to Rayner, Lammy no contest and he also has the charisma Reeves and Cooper don't even if the latter might be safe pairs of hands
Won’t Labour be compelled, or at least feel compelled, to have a woman leader next time round. Especially if the Tories elect Badenoch as leader. They’ve been criticised both externally and internally for a lack of a woman leader.
Being a woman doesn't automatically make you electable see Liz Truss or Hillary Clinton or Julia Gillard or Segolene Royale and Valerie Pecresse or maybe Kamala Harris
It’s the difference between “equality” and “equity”.
The former is achieved by encouraging good women to stand for office, the latter by choosing a woman primarily because she is a woman.
Indeed, the difference between Thatcher and Meir and most of the others
I didn't see much evidence John Major or Rishi Sunak enjoyed being Prime Minister in their last 12 months - I don't suppose it was much "fun" for James Callaghan either.
That didn't mean they were all heading for the door (despite all the pleas and protestations they should go).
Most Prime Ministers have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No.10 whether by the electorate or the "men in grey suits". Even Boris Johnson now regrets giving in to the likes of Sir Graham Brady and thinks he should have held out.
No, Starmer will see it out unless there is a monumental scandal or a health issue - the last PM to leave in any way voluntarily was Wilson in 1976 (though there seem all sorts of theories about that). Absent either of those he will be the Prime Minister and Labour leader at the next election - whether he wins re-election or not is another matter.
He's already lost Leon's and Taz's votes, so it's looking like a walkover for um... maybe Farage.
Only a third of labour voters, on recent polling, are pleased with their performance to date so we are not alone. Unlike Leon I can be won back, like many others I suspect, and Don’t worry, he still has you to shill for him here, when you show your face that is and when you’re not having Leon wipe the floor with you, as he did the other night or you’re not flouncing because people are being nasty about labour 😂😂😂😂
One small point in Leon's favour is that he has yet to succumb to the childish tendency of using excessive emojis as a substitute for wit.
Fpt Bloody hell, I know 24/7 royal PR is SOP for the Beeb, but it’s in fawning overdrive today. The doctors are looking after Chuck’s physical health but it’s his sense of duty that is keeping his mind and spirit in fine fettle apparently. It seems that we need to know this at the top of every news bulletin, on the hour.
The BBC has been inextricably infected by royal derangement syndrome for decades, and it’s getting worse.
What little I saw from Samoa was the king looking old and frail. It's good to know that his health is improving, but it's rather cruel to expect such an old man to carry out multiple duties.
If we are to keep a monarchy, we should have a retirement age so that we have monarchs who are well enough for the rigours of the role. It is done in other monarchies, so not a threat to the role.
But our monarchy (with the possible exception of Japan) seems to be the last one that demands that a kind of holy mystique be attached to it, literally holy since they bung the CoE into the mix. Such a prosaic concept as a retirement age would finish the mystique (such as it is) off. Since the next one in line seems to be a slightly dim middle manager with a pushy wife, perhaps that’ll do the finishing off anyway.
What a load of crap.
Compared to Starmer, Badenoch, Jenrick, Farage, Davey and Swinney Wills and Kate would be like the British JFK and Jackie.
The King is also younger than Biden and Trump
But you're a baptised fully signed up member of the cult.
Look at the polling, William has a net favourable rating of +59%, Kate a net rating of +61%.
You'd think then on that basis they'd ask the state broadcaster to stop continually arsecrawling them, out of embarassment apart from anything else. Or perhaps the two are connected?
They don't, the BBC already give far more coverage to the ridiculous Republic than they should.
In my view the BBC is not pro monarchy enough now
Up it to half hourly bulletins on how KCII is a bloody good chap doing a marvellous job?
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
This illustrates the problem not the solution. Let is assume the 'science' is correct and includes the real possibility we are doomed bigly if CO2 continues to rise.
It doesn't matter if there are reductions in CO2 emissions (so far there aren't by the way). CO2 is going to carry on being emitted for the long term future. A complete turnaround isn't on any horizon.
This adds, at whatever speed, to the CO2 already there. It's like debt. Lowering the amount you borrow further sounds good but still increases the debt.
This means that unless carbon capture works, if we could be doomed, we are doomed.
The only chances we have are: actually we aren't doomed despite CO2; or the successful scaling up of carbon capture by a global hoover. There are no other options. (Obvs maximal greening is also essential - that's a given).
In terms of reducing emissions, it's like paying off your highest interest debts first. That's why switching from coal to gas in the 2010s was probably the most important intervention we have made so far.
Next up is wind, solar, EVs and heat pumps, probably in that order. You'd get an awful lot more carbon out of the atmosphere over 50 years from 5GW of wind power than a speculative effort at CCS (I think 5GW is roughly equivalent to £20 billion).
But, and again I’ll defer to someone with inside knowledge on this, my understanding is that the CCUS play is largely a piece of industrial strategy. It’s giving a nascent industry a guaranteed buyer once it’s off the ground, so that industry can then start selling storage to the world and make money.
It’s not money on the table now but it’s the sort of strategy the US military has successfully used to incubate future aerospace and defence giants.
Who is going to buy ? It seems highly improbable to me, given the advance in other technologies, and the cost of this. And that's without considering the practical objections, which @Richard_Tyndall has previously outlined.
If government is to drive industrial energy policy, then get those SMR nukes into production yesterday, build a couple of reservoirs for pumped storage, explore tidal electricity production, and invest in university projects for making energy storage more efficient.
I didn't see much evidence John Major or Rishi Sunak enjoyed being Prime Minister in their last 12 months - I don't suppose it was much "fun" for James Callaghan either.
That didn't mean they were all heading for the door (despite all the pleas and protestations they should go).
Most Prime Ministers have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No.10 whether by the electorate or the "men in grey suits". Even Boris Johnson now regrets giving in to the likes of Sir Graham Brady and thinks he should have held out.
No, Starmer will see it out unless there is a monumental scandal or a health issue - the last PM to leave in any way voluntarily was Wilson in 1976 (though there seem all sorts of theories about that). Absent either of those he will be the Prime Minister and Labour leader at the next election - whether he wins re-election or not is another matter.
He's already lost Leon's and Taz's votes, so it's looking like a walkover for um... maybe Farage.
Only a third of labour voters, on recent polling, are pleased with their performance to date so we are not alone. Unlike Leon I can be won back, like many others I suspect, and Don’t worry, he still has you to shill for him here, when you show your face that is and when you’re not having Leon wipe the floor with you, as he did the other night or you’re not flouncing because people are being nasty about labour 😂😂😂😂
One small point in Leon's favour is that he has yet to succumb to the childish tendency of using excessive emojis as a substitute for wit.
I didn't see much evidence John Major or Rishi Sunak enjoyed being Prime Minister in their last 12 months - I don't suppose it was much "fun" for James Callaghan either.
That didn't mean they were all heading for the door (despite all the pleas and protestations they should go).
Most Prime Ministers have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No.10 whether by the electorate or the "men in grey suits". Even Boris Johnson now regrets giving in to the likes of Sir Graham Brady and thinks he should have held out.
No, Starmer will see it out unless there is a monumental scandal or a health issue - the last PM to leave in any way voluntarily was Wilson in 1976 (though there seem all sorts of theories about that). Absent either of those he will be the Prime Minister and Labour leader at the next election - whether he wins re-election or not is another matter.
He's already lost Leon's and Taz's votes, so it's looking like a walkover for um... maybe Farage.
Only a third of labour voters, on recent polling, are pleased with their performance to date so we are not alone. Unlike Leon I can be won back, like many others I suspect, and Don’t worry, he still has you to shill for him here, when you show your face that is and when you’re not having Leon wipe the floor with you, as he did the other night or you’re not flouncing because people are being nasty about labour 😂😂😂😂
One small point in Leon's favour is that he has yet to succumb to the childish tendency of using excessive emojis as a substitute for wit.
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
This illustrates the problem not the solution. Let is assume the 'science' is correct and includes the real possibility we are doomed bigly if CO2 continues to rise.
It doesn't matter if there are reductions in CO2 emissions (so far there aren't by the way). CO2 is going to carry on being emitted for the long term future. A complete turnaround isn't on any horizon.
This adds, at whatever speed, to the CO2 already there. It's like debt. Lowering the amount you borrow further sounds good but still increases the debt.
This means that unless carbon capture works, if we could be doomed, we are doomed.
The only chances we have are: actually we aren't doomed despite CO2; or the successful scaling up of carbon capture by a global hoover. There are no other options. (Obvs maximal greening is also essential - that's a given).
Empress trees are the most efficient plants at capturing carbon per acre, absorbing over 100 tons per acre per year.
There are nearly 20 million acres in Scotland so that's about 2,000 million tons of carbon removed from the atmosphere per year. The UK currently emits about 400 million tons of carbon a year. Job done. Thanks you Scotland.
This only applies whilst the tree is growing, once mature its carbon capture is, to use a term, net zero. The only real way the mass planting of trees is anything other than cosmetic is to plant them, grow them, cut them down when at the point they are more or less neutral, and importantly preserve them, probably through treating them and then burial , rinse and repeat.
Remember, only growing trees consume more carbon through photosynthesis than they release during respiration. The carbon cycle you were told at school was a dumbed down bit of science to get across what photosynthesis is.
I like the idea of creating vast stores of buried wood matter, underground. Bury it deep. Perhaps a future civilisation might find of use.
I think Bill Gates foundation has been exploring its feasibility at scale. Of course we are pretty much replicating how the earth acquired the atmosphere balance it currently has. We had trees for millions of years before organisms that could break the trees down had evolved.
PEAT BOGS.
(See my other, nerdy, comment.)
Even better - as pear bogs “grow” they handle the sequestration of older material without any added work. Until the bottom is 1000s of feet down and the compression gets serious… and you get….
JFYI a plate of really excellent fresh sashimi - tuna, salmon, mackerel, roe, the works - in a pretty cool little restaurant in downtown Osaka, is 1200 Yen
Fpt Bloody hell, I know 24/7 royal PR is SOP for the Beeb, but it’s in fawning overdrive today. The doctors are looking after Chuck’s physical health but it’s his sense of duty that is keeping his mind and spirit in fine fettle apparently. It seems that we need to know this at the top of every news bulletin, on the hour.
The BBC has been inextricably infected by royal derangement syndrome for decades, and it’s getting worse.
What little I saw from Samoa was the king looking old and frail. It's good to know that his health is improving, but it's rather cruel to expect such an old man to carry out multiple duties.
If we are to keep a monarchy, we should have a retirement age so that we have monarchs who are well enough for the rigours of the role. It is done in other monarchies, so not a threat to the role.
But our monarchy (with the possible exception of Japan) seems to be the last one that demands that a kind of holy mystique be attached to it, literally holy since they bung the CoE into the mix. Such a prosaic concept as a retirement age would finish the mystique (such as it is) off. Since the next one in line seems to be a slightly dim middle manager with a pushy wife, perhaps that’ll do the finishing off anyway.
What a load of crap.
Compared to Starmer, Badenoch, Jenrick, Farage, Davey and Swinney Wills and Kate would be like the British JFK and Jackie.
The King is also younger than Biden and Trump
But you're a baptised fully signed up member of the cult.
Look at the polling, William has a net favourable rating of +59%, Kate a net rating of +61%.
You'd think then on that basis they'd ask the state broadcaster to stop continually arsecrawling them, out of embarassment apart from anything else. Or perhaps the two are connected?
They don't, the BBC already give far more coverage to the ridiculous Republic than they should.
In my view the BBC is not pro monarchy enough now
Up it to half hourly bulletins on how KCII is a bloody good chap doing a marvellous job?
A pendant notes that KCII was more hairy than the current incumbent, who is KCIII.
(I thought you were trolling us Scotch Experts, and the current one was KCII of North Britain, but I think he's actually KCIII since the titles merged just after 1600, and it's a genuine typo.)
What proportion of that 60% think the USA is "on the wrong track" because it's on the verge of electing Trump again? It's a terrible polling question, vague and easy to misinterpret. The two results are a Harris presidency without control of the Senate, unable to rebalance the democratic norms and small c conservative because they will be blocked in the Houses or Trump with a majority in both and totally unchecked, able to pursue radical changes. A Harris presidency doesn't threaten the Republican's but a Trump presidency could be a threat to all.
I didn't see much evidence John Major or Rishi Sunak enjoyed being Prime Minister in their last 12 months - I don't suppose it was much "fun" for James Callaghan either.
That didn't mean they were all heading for the door (despite all the pleas and protestations they should go).
Most Prime Ministers have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No.10 whether by the electorate or the "men in grey suits". Even Boris Johnson now regrets giving in to the likes of Sir Graham Brady and thinks he should have held out.
No, Starmer will see it out unless there is a monumental scandal or a health issue - the last PM to leave in any way voluntarily was Wilson in 1976 (though there seem all sorts of theories about that). Absent either of those he will be the Prime Minister and Labour leader at the next election - whether he wins re-election or not is another matter.
He's already lost Leon's and Taz's votes, so it's looking like a walkover for um... maybe Farage.
Only a third of labour voters, on recent polling, are pleased with their performance to date so we are not alone. Unlike Leon I can be won back, like many others I suspect, and Don’t worry, he still has you to shill for him here, when you show your face that is and when you’re not having Leon wipe the floor with you, as he did the other night or you’re not flouncing because people are being nasty about labour 😂😂😂😂
I couldn't care less if you call Labour out when they have genuinely f***** up. The delay in the budget is ludicrous, the kite flying around WFP poorly thought through, the negative stance on the EU, pathetic, the response to Israel is weak, clarity on immigration is slow and the dangerous small boats keep coming, and I could go on.
Criticism on here have been justifiable for all of the above but also, and less legitimately, excessive prison sentences for the Farage rioters, release of prisoners to free up space ( although doing it in one day is probably a folly) implementing Cleverly's plan for Chagos, binning the Rwanda stunt, providing structured pay increases to resolve public sector pay disputes, making up narratives about reparations, claiming benefitting from an Arsenal box is more corrupt than the PPE fast lanes for friends outrage, and perhaps most egregious of all claiming economic incompetence on budget policy written by the Daily Telegraph. I could go on.
We have a couple of posters who without any corresponding evidence chip in with a post of no more significance than "Starmer is shite". He might be but fact rather than fiction should help our confirmation.
JFYI a plate of really excellent fresh sashimi - tuna, salmon, mackerel, roe, the works - in a pretty cool little restaurant in downtown Osaka, is 1200 Yen
That’s…. £6
Yeah, when Japan is cheap, it's really cheap. I had a great 3 course lunch plus glass of wine in this little French bistro near the peace memorial park in Hiroshima for £9:
Fpt Bloody hell, I know 24/7 royal PR is SOP for the Beeb, but it’s in fawning overdrive today. The doctors are looking after Chuck’s physical health but it’s his sense of duty that is keeping his mind and spirit in fine fettle apparently. It seems that we need to know this at the top of every news bulletin, on the hour.
The BBC has been inextricably infected by royal derangement syndrome for decades, and it’s getting worse.
What little I saw from Samoa was the king looking old and frail. It's good to know that his health is improving, but it's rather cruel to expect such an old man to carry out multiple duties.
If we are to keep a monarchy, we should have a retirement age so that we have monarchs who are well enough for the rigours of the role. It is done in other monarchies, so not a threat to the role.
But our monarchy (with the possible exception of Japan) seems to be the last one that demands that a kind of holy mystique be attached to it, literally holy since they bung the CoE into the mix. Such a prosaic concept as a retirement age would finish the mystique (such as it is) off. Since the next one in line seems to be a slightly dim middle manager with a pushy wife, perhaps that’ll do the finishing off anyway.
What a load of crap.
Compared to Starmer, Badenoch, Jenrick, Farage, Davey and Swinney Wills and Kate would be like the British JFK and Jackie.
The King is also younger than Biden and Trump
But you're a baptised fully signed up member of the cult.
Look at the polling, William has a net favourable rating of +59%, Kate a net rating of +61%.
You'd think then on that basis they'd ask the state broadcaster to stop continually arsecrawling them, out of embarassment apart from anything else. Or perhaps the two are connected?
They don't, the BBC already give far more coverage to the ridiculous Republic than they should.
In my view the BBC is not pro monarchy enough now
Up it to half hourly bulletins on how KCII is a bloody good chap doing a marvellous job?
I very much doubt that Plan A involved him becoming Prime Minister. More likely it was that he's just having cleaned up the party, moved them on a bit but lost. That he became PM is a function of the repeated pratfalls by the last lot.
He's not getting any younger, and the job takes it out of a man- look at Johnson or Sunak. I reckon his plan B is to win in 2028 and retire in 2030. Whether that works or not is not yet for ours to see.
Plan C would be to do a Biden in 2028 or so; step down with a medical chitty and hand over to someone younger and smiler.
50:50 chance that he goes early? I wouldn't put it that high, but it's certainly not a low chance. What really kills these odds for me is that the return might be more than four years away. You can get a decent lower-risk return in that time.
The other factor, there isn't an obvious replacement at the moment.
Ah, that's when Starmer tearfully does the walk of shame to the Palace and advises the King to call for Badenoch/Farage/Truss/Johnson/the exhumed remains of Lady Thatcher.
But yes, the thing to watch is who gets promoted at the mid-term reshuffle
Your point about Starmer not being the intended Prime Minister is one I've heard before. What I've heard is that Starmer was meant to be a transitional LOTO, getting rid of all the lefties and losing well, before Wes Streeting took over and won the next election. It sort of makes sense. One could not have expected Boris's entire majority to be gone at a stroke.
That would explain why a leader with very deep flaws, both in character and circumstances, is now PM, and why every day is a constant mess. Wes Streeting won't now be able to take over - he is a 'good time' successor LOTO, not an emergency steady the ship PM.
It has its lessons for the Tory Party too - people saying the Tories need a good LOTO not an alternative PM and programme for Government are talking nonsense I'm afraid. You never know when you'll be called to govern.
Streeting was the Blairite candidate, Starmer the Brownite candidate.
Streeting is also I think Labour's most electable alternative to Starmer if he is removed, compared to Rayner, Lammy no contest and he also has the charisma Reeves and Cooper don't even if the latter might be safe pairs of hands
Won’t Labour be compelled, or at least feel compelled, to have a woman leader next time round. Especially if the Tories elect Badenoch as leader. They’ve been criticised both externally and internally for a lack of a woman leader.
Does the next leader have to be female? Does a gay white man float your boat? Streeting?
Why does Labour hate those individuals whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova?
You do have a point. The white working class always were a patriarchal misogynistic bunch. You never saw women down the coal mine. The mines were their version of the Garrick club.
I didn't see much evidence John Major or Rishi Sunak enjoyed being Prime Minister in their last 12 months - I don't suppose it was much "fun" for James Callaghan either.
That didn't mean they were all heading for the door (despite all the pleas and protestations they should go).
Most Prime Ministers have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No.10 whether by the electorate or the "men in grey suits". Even Boris Johnson now regrets giving in to the likes of Sir Graham Brady and thinks he should have held out.
No, Starmer will see it out unless there is a monumental scandal or a health issue - the last PM to leave in any way voluntarily was Wilson in 1976 (though there seem all sorts of theories about that). Absent either of those he will be the Prime Minister and Labour leader at the next election - whether he wins re-election or not is another matter.
He's already lost Leon's and Taz's votes, so it's looking like a walkover for um... maybe Farage.
Only a third of labour voters, on recent polling, are pleased with their performance to date so we are not alone. Unlike Leon I can be won back, like many others I suspect, and Don’t worry, he still has you to shill for him here, when you show your face that is and when you’re not having Leon wipe the floor with you, as he did the other night or you’re not flouncing because people are being nasty about labour 😂😂😂😂
I couldn't care less if you call Labour out when they have genuinely f***** up. The delay in the budget is ludicrous, the kite flying around WFP poorly thought through, the negative stance on the EU, pathetic, the response to Israel is weak, clarity on immigration is slow and the dangerous small boats keep coming, and I could go on.
Criticism on here have been justifiable for all of the above but also, and less legitimately, excessive prison sentences for the Farage rioters, release of prisoners to free up space ( although doing it in one day is probably a folly) implementing Cleverly's plan for Chagos, binning the Rwanda stunt, providing structured pay increases to resolve public sector pay disputes, making up narratives about reparations, claiming benefitting from an Arsenal box is more corrupt than the PPE fast lanes for friends outrage, and perhaps most egregious of all claiming economic incompetence on budget policy written by the Daily Telegraph. I could go on.
We have a couple of posters who without any corresponding evidence chip in with a post of no more significance than "Starmer is shite". He might be but fact rather than fiction should help our confirmation.
Starmer claimed £100k in freebies and then said it was no biggie and “fair dos”, plus the apartment and the fake home and the rumours of more, much more
in terms of PERSONAL greed and corruption it is quite astonishing
And the Chagos Surrender was and is a fucking disgrace and a colossal geopolitical error. The fact he was enacting a policy devised by the most insane prime minister in recent decades, Liz Truss, is not exactly an excuse. Aren’t Labour meant to be the “adults”?
I didn't see much evidence John Major or Rishi Sunak enjoyed being Prime Minister in their last 12 months - I don't suppose it was much "fun" for James Callaghan either.
That didn't mean they were all heading for the door (despite all the pleas and protestations they should go).
Most Prime Ministers have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No.10 whether by the electorate or the "men in grey suits". Even Boris Johnson now regrets giving in to the likes of Sir Graham Brady and thinks he should have held out.
No, Starmer will see it out unless there is a monumental scandal or a health issue - the last PM to leave in any way voluntarily was Wilson in 1976 (though there seem all sorts of theories about that). Absent either of those he will be the Prime Minister and Labour leader at the next election - whether he wins re-election or not is another matter.
He's already lost Leon's and Taz's votes, so it's looking like a walkover for um... maybe Farage.
Only a third of labour voters, on recent polling, are pleased with their performance to date so we are not alone. Unlike Leon I can be won back, like many others I suspect, and Don’t worry, he still has you to shill for him here, when you show your face that is and when you’re not having Leon wipe the floor with you, as he did the other night or you’re not flouncing because people are being nasty about labour 😂😂😂😂
I couldn't care less if you call Labour out when they have genuinely f***** up. The delay in the budget is ludicrous, the kite flying around WFP poorly thought through, the negative stance on the EU, pathetic, the response to Israel is weak, clarity on immigration is slow and the dangerous small boats keep coming, and I could go on. .
You care enough to continually have digs at me about my support for labour, another one today for no reason, and your digs at me as a ‘lifelong labour voter’ using inverted commas to imply otherwise. 🙄
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
This illustrates the problem not the solution. Let is assume the 'science' is correct and includes the real possibility we are doomed bigly if CO2 continues to rise.
It doesn't matter if there are reductions in CO2 emissions (so far there aren't by the way). CO2 is going to carry on being emitted for the long term future. A complete turnaround isn't on any horizon.
This adds, at whatever speed, to the CO2 already there. It's like debt. Lowering the amount you borrow further sounds good but still increases the debt.
This means that unless carbon capture works, if we could be doomed, we are doomed.
The only chances we have are: actually we aren't doomed despite CO2; or the successful scaling up of carbon capture by a global hoover. There are no other options. (Obvs maximal greening is also essential - that's a given).
In terms of reducing emissions, it's like paying off your highest interest debts first. That's why switching from coal to gas in the 2010s was probably the most important intervention we have made so far.
Next up is wind, solar, EVs and heat pumps, probably in that order. You'd get an awful lot more carbon out of the atmosphere over 50 years from 5GW of wind power than a speculative effort at CCS (I think 5GW is roughly equivalent to £20 billion).
But, and again I’ll defer to someone with inside knowledge on this, my understanding is that the CCUS play is largely a piece of industrial strategy. It’s giving a nascent industry a guaranteed buyer once it’s off the ground, so that industry can then start selling storage to the world and make money.
It’s not money on the table now but it’s the sort of strategy the US military has successfully used to incubate future aerospace and defence giants.
Who is going to buy ? It seems highly improbable to me, given the advance in other technologies, and the cost of this. And that's without considering the practical objections, which @Richard_Tyndall has previously outlined.
If government is to drive industrial energy policy, then get those SMR nukes into production yesterday, build a couple of reservoirs for pumped storage, explore tidal electricity production, and invest in university projects for making energy storage more efficient.
Already doing your 2nd and 3rd options here in Scotland. The problem with pumped storage is the scale required. Would need something like the entire Findhorn valley, and just look how quickly batteries are developing as an alternative.
Fpt Bloody hell, I know 24/7 royal PR is SOP for the Beeb, but it’s in fawning overdrive today. The doctors are looking after Chuck’s physical health but it’s his sense of duty that is keeping his mind and spirit in fine fettle apparently. It seems that we need to know this at the top of every news bulletin, on the hour.
The BBC has been inextricably infected by royal derangement syndrome for decades, and it’s getting worse.
What little I saw from Samoa was the king looking old and frail. It's good to know that his health is improving, but it's rather cruel to expect such an old man to carry out multiple duties.
If we are to keep a monarchy, we should have a retirement age so that we have monarchs who are well enough for the rigours of the role. It is done in other monarchies, so not a threat to the role.
But our monarchy (with the possible exception of Japan) seems to be the last one that demands that a kind of holy mystique be attached to it, literally holy since they bung the CoE into the mix. Such a prosaic concept as a retirement age would finish the mystique (such as it is) off. Since the next one in line seems to be a slightly dim middle manager with a pushy wife, perhaps that’ll do the finishing off anyway.
What a load of crap.
Compared to Starmer, Badenoch, Jenrick, Farage, Davey and Swinney Wills and Kate would be like the British JFK and Jackie.
The King is also younger than Biden and Trump
But you're a baptised fully signed up member of the cult.
Look at the polling, William has a net favourable rating of +59%, Kate a net rating of +61%.
You'd think then on that basis they'd ask the state broadcaster to stop continually arsecrawling them, out of embarassment apart from anything else. Or perhaps the two are connected?
They don't, the BBC already give far more coverage to the ridiculous Republic than they should.
In my view the BBC is not pro monarchy enough now
Up it to half hourly bulletins on how KCII is a bloody good chap doing a marvellous job?
A pendant notes that KCII was more hairy than the current incumbent, who is KCIII.
(I thought you were trolling us Scotch Experts, and the current one was KCII of North Britain, but I think he's actually KCIII since the titles merged just after 1600, and it's a genuine typo.)
Apols, a typo, though for the true Jacobite there have been 4 KCs. The BBC might be in difficulties if polishing the turd of KCI or sanitising the shenanigans of KCII.
I very much doubt that Plan A involved him becoming Prime Minister. More likely it was that he's just having cleaned up the party, moved them on a bit but lost. That he became PM is a function of the repeated pratfalls by the last lot.
He's not getting any younger, and the job takes it out of a man- look at Johnson or Sunak. I reckon his plan B is to win in 2028 and retire in 2030. Whether that works or not is not yet for ours to see.
Plan C would be to do a Biden in 2028 or so; step down with a medical chitty and hand over to someone younger and smiler.
50:50 chance that he goes early? I wouldn't put it that high, but it's certainly not a low chance. What really kills these odds for me is that the return might be more than four years away. You can get a decent lower-risk return in that time.
The other factor, there isn't an obvious replacement at the moment.
Ah, that's when Starmer tearfully does the walk of shame to the Palace and advises the King to call for Badenoch/Farage/Truss/Johnson/the exhumed remains of Lady Thatcher.
But yes, the thing to watch is who gets promoted at the mid-term reshuffle
My comment about no obvious replacement wasn't just talking about the Labour party!
Starmer's personal ratings are terrible, but the public don't really like anybody else, so there is literally no pressure for the foreseeable future.
The mood music from Labour has become more positive and active recent weeks.
JFYI a plate of really excellent fresh sashimi - tuna, salmon, mackerel, roe, the works - in a pretty cool little restaurant in downtown Osaka, is 1200 Yen
That’s…. £6
Yeah, when Japan is cheap, it's really cheap. I had a great 3 course lunch plus glass of wine in this little French bistro near the peace memorial park in Hiroshima for £9:
Apart from a few really high end hotels in Kyoto and Tokyo (not paying, fortunately) I have noted that EVERYTHING is cheap in Japan, sometimes ridiculously so: trains and beers, Ubers and hookers
I had a plate of excellent gyoza earlier for £2.40
Also wine, amazingly. You can walk in any convenience store and walk out with a decent bottle of red (nothing special, but decent) for £4
if you can contrive to live in Japan on a western salary, right now, you live like The Shogun
I didn't see much evidence John Major or Rishi Sunak enjoyed being Prime Minister in their last 12 months - I don't suppose it was much "fun" for James Callaghan either.
That didn't mean they were all heading for the door (despite all the pleas and protestations they should go).
Most Prime Ministers have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No.10 whether by the electorate or the "men in grey suits". Even Boris Johnson now regrets giving in to the likes of Sir Graham Brady and thinks he should have held out.
No, Starmer will see it out unless there is a monumental scandal or a health issue - the last PM to leave in any way voluntarily was Wilson in 1976 (though there seem all sorts of theories about that). Absent either of those he will be the Prime Minister and Labour leader at the next election - whether he wins re-election or not is another matter.
He's already lost Leon's and Taz's votes, so it's looking like a walkover for um... maybe Farage.
Only a third of labour voters, on recent polling, are pleased with their performance to date so we are not alone. Unlike Leon I can be won back, like many others I suspect, and Don’t worry, he still has you to shill for him here, when you show your face that is and when you’re not having Leon wipe the floor with you, as he did the other night or you’re not flouncing because people are being nasty about labour 😂😂😂😂
I couldn't care less if you call Labour out when they have genuinely f***** up. The delay in the budget is ludicrous, the kite flying around WFP poorly thought through, the negative stance on the EU, pathetic, the response to Israel is weak, clarity on immigration is slow and the dangerous small boats keep coming, and I could go on. .
You care enough to continually have digs at me about my support for labour, another one today for no reason, and your digs at me as a ‘lifelong labour voter’ using inverted commas to imply otherwise. 🙄
Perhaps you are, I wouldn't know, but by your commentary you are giving them a turkeys voting for Christmas vote.
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
This illustrates the problem not the solution. Let is assume the 'science' is correct and includes the real possibility we are doomed bigly if CO2 continues to rise.
It doesn't matter if there are reductions in CO2 emissions (so far there aren't by the way). CO2 is going to carry on being emitted for the long term future. A complete turnaround isn't on any horizon.
This adds, at whatever speed, to the CO2 already there. It's like debt. Lowering the amount you borrow further sounds good but still increases the debt.
This means that unless carbon capture works, if we could be doomed, we are doomed.
The only chances we have are: actually we aren't doomed despite CO2; or the successful scaling up of carbon capture by a global hoover. There are no other options. (Obvs maximal greening is also essential - that's a given).
In terms of reducing emissions, it's like paying off your highest interest debts first. That's why switching from coal to gas in the 2010s was probably the most important intervention we have made so far.
Next up is wind, solar, EVs and heat pumps, probably in that order. You'd get an awful lot more carbon out of the atmosphere over 50 years from 5GW of wind power than a speculative effort at CCS (I think 5GW is roughly equivalent to £20 billion).
But, and again I’ll defer to someone with inside knowledge on this, my understanding is that the CCUS play is largely a piece of industrial strategy. It’s giving a nascent industry a guaranteed buyer once it’s off the ground, so that industry can then start selling storage to the world and make money.
It’s not money on the table now but it’s the sort of strategy the US military has successfully used to incubate future aerospace and defence giants.
Who is going to buy ? It seems highly improbable to me, given the advance in other technologies, and the cost of this. And that's without considering the practical objections, which @Richard_Tyndall has previously outlined.
If government is to drive industrial energy policy, then get those SMR nukes into production yesterday, build a couple of reservoirs for pumped storage, explore tidal electricity production, and invest in university projects for making energy storage more efficient.
Already doing your 2nd and 3rd options here in Scotland. The problem with pumped storage is the scale required. Would need something like the entire Findhorn valley, and just look how quickly batteries are developing as an alternative.
Existing structures that wouldn't require as much engineering (some of the very large clay pits in the SW) might still be economically competitive.
Mr. Royale, the carbon capture bullshit is ridiculous.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
This illustrates the problem not the solution. Let is assume the 'science' is correct and includes the real possibility we are doomed bigly if CO2 continues to rise.
It doesn't matter if there are reductions in CO2 emissions (so far there aren't by the way). CO2 is going to carry on being emitted for the long term future. A complete turnaround isn't on any horizon.
This adds, at whatever speed, to the CO2 already there. It's like debt. Lowering the amount you borrow further sounds good but still increases the debt.
This means that unless carbon capture works, if we could be doomed, we are doomed.
The only chances we have are: actually we aren't doomed despite CO2; or the successful scaling up of carbon capture by a global hoover. There are no other options. (Obvs maximal greening is also essential - that's a given).
In terms of reducing emissions, it's like paying off your highest interest debts first. That's why switching from coal to gas in the 2010s was probably the most important intervention we have made so far.
Next up is wind, solar, EVs and heat pumps, probably in that order. You'd get an awful lot more carbon out of the atmosphere over 50 years from 5GW of wind power than a speculative effort at CCS (I think 5GW is roughly equivalent to £20 billion).
But, and again I’ll defer to someone with inside knowledge on this, my understanding is that the CCUS play is largely a piece of industrial strategy. It’s giving a nascent industry a guaranteed buyer once it’s off the ground, so that industry can then start selling storage to the world and make money.
It’s not money on the table now but it’s the sort of strategy the US military has successfully used to incubate future aerospace and defence giants.
Who is going to buy ? It seems highly improbable to me, given the advance in other technologies, and the cost of this. And that's without considering the practical objections, which @Richard_Tyndall has previously outlined.
If government is to drive industrial energy policy, then get those SMR nukes into production yesterday, build a couple of reservoirs for pumped storage, explore tidal electricity production, and invest in university projects for making energy storage more efficient.
Already doing your 2nd and 3rd options here in Scotland. The problem with pumped storage is the scale required. Would need something like the entire Findhorn valley, and just look how quickly batteries are developing as an alternative.
Existing structures that wouldn't require as much engineering (some of the very large clay pits in the SW) might still be economically competitive.
Chucking some big weights down our disused mines too. Basically stone age technology, but it works!
I didn't see much evidence John Major or Rishi Sunak enjoyed being Prime Minister in their last 12 months - I don't suppose it was much "fun" for James Callaghan either.
That didn't mean they were all heading for the door (despite all the pleas and protestations they should go).
Most Prime Ministers have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No.10 whether by the electorate or the "men in grey suits". Even Boris Johnson now regrets giving in to the likes of Sir Graham Brady and thinks he should have held out.
No, Starmer will see it out unless there is a monumental scandal or a health issue - the last PM to leave in any way voluntarily was Wilson in 1976 (though there seem all sorts of theories about that). Absent either of those he will be the Prime Minister and Labour leader at the next election - whether he wins re-election or not is another matter.
He's already lost Leon's and Taz's votes, so it's looking like a walkover for um... maybe Farage.
Only a third of labour voters, on recent polling, are pleased with their performance to date so we are not alone. Unlike Leon I can be won back, like many others I suspect, and Don’t worry, he still has you to shill for him here, when you show your face that is and when you’re not having Leon wipe the floor with you, as he did the other night or you’re not flouncing because people are being nasty about labour 😂😂😂😂
I couldn't care less if you call Labour out when they have genuinely f***** up. The delay in the budget is ludicrous, the kite flying around WFP poorly thought through, the negative stance on the EU, pathetic, the response to Israel is weak, clarity on immigration is slow and the dangerous small boats keep coming, and I could go on. .
You care enough to continually have digs at me about my support for labour, another one today for no reason, and your digs at me as a ‘lifelong labour voter’ using inverted commas to imply otherwise. 🙄
Perhaps you are, I wouldn't know, but by your commentary you are giving them a turkeys voting for Christmas vote.
I didn't see much evidence John Major or Rishi Sunak enjoyed being Prime Minister in their last 12 months - I don't suppose it was much "fun" for James Callaghan either.
That didn't mean they were all heading for the door (despite all the pleas and protestations they should go).
Most Prime Ministers have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No.10 whether by the electorate or the "men in grey suits". Even Boris Johnson now regrets giving in to the likes of Sir Graham Brady and thinks he should have held out.
No, Starmer will see it out unless there is a monumental scandal or a health issue - the last PM to leave in any way voluntarily was Wilson in 1976 (though there seem all sorts of theories about that). Absent either of those he will be the Prime Minister and Labour leader at the next election - whether he wins re-election or not is another matter.
He's already lost Leon's and Taz's votes, so it's looking like a walkover for um... maybe Farage.
Only a third of labour voters, on recent polling, are pleased with their performance to date so we are not alone. Unlike Leon I can be won back, like many others I suspect, and Don’t worry, he still has you to shill for him here, when you show your face that is and when you’re not having Leon wipe the floor with you, as he did the other night or you’re not flouncing because people are being nasty about labour 😂😂😂😂
I couldn't care less if you call Labour out when they have genuinely f***** up. The delay in the budget is ludicrous, the kite flying around WFP poorly thought through, the negative stance on the EU, pathetic, the response to Israel is weak, clarity on immigration is slow and the dangerous small boats keep coming, and I could go on. .
You care enough to continually have digs at me about my support for labour, another one today for no reason, and your digs at me as a ‘lifelong labour voter’ using inverted commas to imply otherwise. 🙄
Perhaps you are, I wouldn't know, but by your commentary you are giving them a turkey's voting for Christmas vote.
Indeed you wouldn’t know but it doesn’t stop you from commenting, ad nauseum.
Mind you commenting without knowledge is not unique to this particular issue where you’re concerned.
Japan general election: LDP projected to lose its majority. Looks touch-and-go whether they'll have a majority in combination with their longstanding coalition partners Komeito (the political wing of the Sokka Gakkai cult).
Former racing driver Billy Monger just completed the World Ironman Championship for Comic Relief, and knocked TWO HOURS off the course record for a double amputee in the event.
Japan general election: LDP projected to lose its majority. Looks touch-and-go whether they'll have a majority in combination with their longstanding coalition partners Komeito (the political wing of the Sokka Gakkai cult).
Incumbent governments unpopular and losing seats almost everywhere at the moment
I didn't see much evidence John Major or Rishi Sunak enjoyed being Prime Minister in their last 12 months - I don't suppose it was much "fun" for James Callaghan either.
That didn't mean they were all heading for the door (despite all the pleas and protestations they should go).
Most Prime Ministers have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No.10 whether by the electorate or the "men in grey suits". Even Boris Johnson now regrets giving in to the likes of Sir Graham Brady and thinks he should have held out.
No, Starmer will see it out unless there is a monumental scandal or a health issue - the last PM to leave in any way voluntarily was Wilson in 1976 (though there seem all sorts of theories about that). Absent either of those he will be the Prime Minister and Labour leader at the next election - whether he wins re-election or not is another matter.
He's already lost Leon's and Taz's votes, so it's looking like a walkover for um... maybe Farage.
Only a third of labour voters, on recent polling, are pleased with their performance to date so we are not alone. Unlike Leon I can be won back, like many others I suspect, and Don’t worry, he still has you to shill for him here, when you show your face that is and when you’re not having Leon wipe the floor with you, as he did the other night or you’re not flouncing because people are being nasty about labour 😂😂😂😂
I couldn't care less if you call Labour out when they have genuinely f***** up. The delay in the budget is ludicrous, the kite flying around WFP poorly thought through, the negative stance on the EU, pathetic, the response to Israel is weak, clarity on immigration is slow and the dangerous small boats keep coming, and I could go on. .
You care enough to continually have digs at me about my support for labour, another one today for no reason, and your digs at me as a ‘lifelong labour voter’ using inverted commas to imply otherwise. 🙄
Perhaps you are, I wouldn't know, but by your commentary you are giving them a turkey's voting for Christmas vote.
Indeed you wouldn’t know but it doesn’t stop you from commenting, ad nauseum.
Mind you commenting without knowledge is not unique to this particular issue where you’re concerned.
That was quite a cumbersome final sentence, but I got there in the end. I'll take that as a compliment. I remain in good company on PB.
I didn't see much evidence John Major or Rishi Sunak enjoyed being Prime Minister in their last 12 months - I don't suppose it was much "fun" for James Callaghan either.
That didn't mean they were all heading for the door (despite all the pleas and protestations they should go).
Most Prime Ministers have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No.10 whether by the electorate or the "men in grey suits". Even Boris Johnson now regrets giving in to the likes of Sir Graham Brady and thinks he should have held out.
No, Starmer will see it out unless there is a monumental scandal or a health issue - the last PM to leave in any way voluntarily was Wilson in 1976 (though there seem all sorts of theories about that). Absent either of those he will be the Prime Minister and Labour leader at the next election - whether he wins re-election or not is another matter.
He's already lost Leon's and Taz's votes, so it's looking like a walkover for um... maybe Farage.
Only a third of labour voters, on recent polling, are pleased with their performance to date so we are not alone. Unlike Leon I can be won back, like many others I suspect, and Don’t worry, he still has you to shill for him here, when you show your face that is and when you’re not having Leon wipe the floor with you, as he did the other night or you’re not flouncing because people are being nasty about labour 😂😂😂😂
I couldn't care less if you call Labour out when they have genuinely f***** up. The delay in the budget is ludicrous, the kite flying around WFP poorly thought through, the negative stance on the EU, pathetic, the response to Israel is weak, clarity on immigration is slow and the dangerous small boats keep coming, and I could go on. .
You care enough to continually have digs at me about my support for labour, another one today for no reason, and your digs at me as a ‘lifelong labour voter’ using inverted commas to imply otherwise. 🙄
Perhaps you are, I wouldn't know, but by your commentary you are giving them a turkey's voting for Christmas vote.
Indeed you wouldn’t know but it doesn’t stop you from commenting, ad nauseum.
Mind you commenting without knowledge is not unique to this particular issue where you’re concerned.
That was quite a cumbersome final sentence
I guess to you it would appear to be.
Anyway this is futile. I don’t know why you make cheap digs at me without even trying to engage or discuss. Still if it makes you feel adequate so be it. I’m wasting no more time pandering to you.
Of course if he's serious about mass deportation, that will require a serious increase in the size and scope of a very dangerous part of that administrative state.
Former racing driver Billy Monger just completed the World Ironman Championship for Comic Relief, and knocked TWO HOURS off the course record for a double amputee in the event.
Quite an achievement. An Ironman race is blooming difficult - a 2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike and then a marathon 26.2 mile run. Doing that without any disabilities is amazing.
In the main race, Frenchman Sam Laidlow blew up on the run and ended up walking a lot of it, despite having a big lead off the bike. Well done to the winner, Patrick Lange.
I've just bet £50 at 23/20 (boosted) with Ladbrokes that Starmer will not be PM going into the next election.
I think he may well step down prior to the GE in order to refresh the party, and he is getting rather old, but I don't think those odds very good value. It is very hard to unseat a sitting Labour leader, so your bet is effectively on Starmer dying or voluntarily stepping down. Politicians are by nature rather vain, so reluctant to go gracefully.
The odds aren't brilliant, and normally I wouldn't make a bet like this, but seeing how badly the man has done in 100 days and now terrible he looks now.. my instincts are he becomes very unpopular, he ends up hating the job, and he doesn't fight another election.
What odds did you get? I don’t understand 23/20. Is that literally 23/20 in old money
As in: nearly evens?
Yes, it's just over evens.
A 47% chance he's not PM at the next election.
Poor odds I have to say. Except that… the bookies can read the rumours just like anyone else. That might account for their skepticism that he will last the course
And now you have the added imprimatur of @Roger’s disapproval, a man so stupid he cannot walk and eat crisps at the same time
Bad odds. But.you're certain to win
Neither May, Boris, Truss (zero) or Sunak fought more than one election. The last to do two was Cameron.
His landslide majority is a chimera. What matters will be his polling, which I expect will become dire.
The interesting thing is that the Tories have already bounced back in the local election by-elections.
My assumption had been that, if Starmer, Reeves and Labour crashed and burned quickly, before the Tories sorted themselves out, that it would create an opening for Reform or Lib Dems, because the voters would be looking for an alternative to both parties.
Now I'm not so sure. If the voters become desperate to get rid of Labour then only the Tories are a realistic alternative government. Reform and Lib Dems may have missed their chance to eclipse the Tories already.
The main shift since the GE has been Labour to Reform, the LDs and Tories unchanged in most polls.
So Davey may have peaked, Farage hasn't
You are simply extrapolating existing very short term trends across a 5 year parliament.
There is no evidence whatsoever that either Farage or Davey have peaked.
Comments
See also: England's odds of winning at every international tournament ever.
It’s not money on the table now but it’s the sort of strategy the US military has successfully used to incubate future aerospace and defence giants.
a) that you are right and
b) the American military have plans in hand to protect Trump's opponents.
Especially on Inauguration Day!
In the mid 2000's a good buddy of mine shot a spot with The Donald, and he raved about how nice and accommodating he was. It was surprising to me at the time, because in NYC he was known as a total bastard with business deals. And based on his Playboy personality, you might expect him to be a total douche IRL. Not so, said my friend.
Then, in 2009 I was on a long business trip w/ a different friend of mine, who had worked with Trump on a different ad campaign, and he said the exact same thing: that Trump was surprisingly cool. Again, I was a bit surprised. So I asked him to give me the deets.
And this is the story he told me:
https://x.com/erichhartmann/status/1848158759127847074
Roger
Very probably true. I've worked with many who were expected to play the prima donna who ended up being anything but-and vice versa. I remember in the early days of PB recounting a story about someone I'd worked with that was extremely indiscreet without realising the reach of this site and then regretting it for weeks afterwards. So stories from people who work with celebs on ads will invariably be nice ones-or ones not told at all!
Which approach is already creating comedies.
As the cost of solar continues to collapse, we are going to have very cheap energy. Especially after solar + storage takes off.
From an investment in the north of England perspective - great, if it works.
I'm not sure I share your credence placed in Trump distancing himself from Project 2025. Or rather, I'm not sure Trump will really be in power if he wins. I think he'll still be more interested in playing golf, but I think he'll be persuaded to employ people around him who are keen to implement Project 2025 or something similar and who will hold the real power.
Whether or not they manage to remains to be seen, but I don't think it can be so easily dismissed.
He's comfortable making decisions, unlike his predecessors - Starmer has made far more decisions in three months than Sunak managed in two years. The decisions have been reasonable ones given the problems they try to solve. In most cases they were taken after his predecessor failed to decide and was just playing for time.
Starmer's big problem in my view is rebuilding trust in politics. I'm not sure he's capable of that. The previous government left the country in a bad state and wore people out with its endless psychodramas. Starmer needs people to think, it's going to be OK
There is one girl here (apart from me) who clearly fancies the bored young barman (and I don’t think he realises)
He’s making gyozu and watching the baseball as she tries to engage him. She’s pretty but lonely
Ah, all these stories all over the world happening all the time. 8 billion times over
Good pollsters (Sienna, Emerson, Atlas, Fox/Beacon, etc) are showing swings to Trump.
Little reliance should be placed upon Harris Republicans.
At least four people are in a serious condition and others remain trapped under wreckage at the scene in Glilot, just north of Tel Aviv.
Police say the circumstances of the incident are still under investigation, but local media reported the incident as a suspected attack.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdj33rwlyepo
But yes, the thing to watch is who gets promoted at the mid-term reshuffle
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/managing-uk-agriculture-rock-dust-could-absorb-45-cent-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-needed-net-zero
The argument against carbon capture is that the whole idea that the UK is going to get to Net Zero is fake, and it'll be using loads of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, in which case you'd be better spending the money chipping away at that.
Starmer's personal ratings are terrible, but the public don't really like anybody else, so there is literally no pressure for the foreseeable future.
It's very little to do with probabilities and more to do with opinions. If those who want Trump or Harris (or Jenrick or Badenoch) to win for example put money on, the bookies will shorten the odds and for those unfamiliar with betting the fact the odds are shortening somehow makes it more "likely" Trump will win (or rather, that's how it is reported).
You have information and opinion - @Casino_Royale has an opinion, that's all, and he's supporting that opinion with his money. I very much doubt Starmer will be told "someone has put £50 on you not being PM at the next election, you'd better resign"
In the same way, if you have a number of polls from organisations and individuals clearing favouring one side, they create a narrative which drives the market (or rather the speculators/traders). Disinformation or misinformation is often a stronger factor than the truth.
There's also the size and liquidity of any market to consider - if I put £100k on Badenoch to win the Conservative leadership, that would probalby move the market - if I put a tenner on the first race at Wincanton this afternoon, it probably wouldn't.
My assumption had been that, if Starmer, Reeves and Labour crashed and burned quickly, before the Tories sorted themselves out, that it would create an opening for Reform or Lib Dems, because the voters would be looking for an alternative to both parties.
Now I'm not so sure. If the voters become desperate to get rid of Labour then only the Tories are a realistic alternative government. Reform and Lib Dems may have missed their chance to eclipse the Tories already.
We only encouraged liberal democracy after independence became inevitable, such as India in the 1940s and in Africa in the late 1950s. Prior to that we had assemblies heavily restricted in voter eligibility thereby ensuring white control, such as Jamaica and Rhodesia. We only became pro-democracy in these places after we left.
By and large we controlled the terms of trade to prioritise commodity exports to our islands with industrial goods in exchange. We de-industrialised India for example.
Net Zero could end up a bit like the Government's approach to fiscal rules - we'll have debt coming down in five years time. We'll make all the changes to our energy production and use in the 2040s.
https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2024/10/26/presidents-precedents-and-probability
He’s about as effective as a catflap in an elephant house. As long as his feet are warm and he gets a nice cup of milky tea in the sun before his morning nap, he doesn't bother anyone until his potty needs emptying.
Remember, only growing trees consume more carbon through photosynthesis than they release during respiration. The carbon cycle you were told at school was a dumbed down bit of science to get across what photosynthesis is.
No politician is popular at present for either government nor opposition.
I think it quite possible for Starmer to recover to being the best of a bad lot, and there are hints about that happening. The mood music from Labour has become more positive and active recent weeks. Sure their will be tax rises in the budget, but also I think a few surprises that will go down well with supporters.
That would explain why a leader with very deep flaws, both in character and circumstances, is now PM, and why every day is a constant mess. Wes Streeting won't now be able to take over - he is a 'good time' successor LOTO, not an emergency steady the ship PM.
It has its lessons for the Tory Party too - people saying the Tories need a good LOTO not an alternative PM and programme for Government are talking nonsense I'm afraid. You never know when you'll be called to govern.
The ability of our civilisation and indeed all life to adapt to climate change is the issue, not the fact of it or even the intensity. 85% of the world lives in the Northern Hemisphere so that's where we need to start and we also need to look at how many live close to the sea IF sea level rises (which haven't yet developed as some thought) or more ferocious storms (the evidence for that is more complex) become a way of life.
I've always believed in human ingenuity and the power of that ingenuity to solve any problem and I'm optimistic in the longer term we will find ways to mitigate the worst of climate change but I fear in the short to medium term there will be some serious if not catastrophic events.
A potential argument could be carbon capture is a good idea in principle but not cost effective. We're not getting to that argument. We're stuck on square 1.
https://youtu.be/ClbmWkbocoY?si=3B-FO4qyePTNF4i2
@Roger
Indiscreet stories tend to be posted on threads on forums on places like digital spy these days. Anonymous and fascinating who is nice and who isn’t (Cilla 😵)
Concrete may be dealt with by different chemistry. There are even some chemistries that are being looked at, that are net *consumers* of CO2.
Similarly steel production….
The Conservatives bounced back after 1997 - indeed, in the local elections on the day of the GE, they made significant gains and in 1999 won back 1300 of the 2000 seats they had lost in 1995. It made no difference in 2001.
Yes, you can argue the scale of gains made by the Conservatives in years like 1968 and 1977 presaged a change of Government but we are nowhere near that currently. Indeed, the Conservatives lost a seat to the LDs last Thursday and other parties (Greens, Reform, Independents) have all made gains from Labour while Labour has also held seats which, were there a strong pro-Conservative tide, they would have lost.
What we are seeing is the motivated Conservative vote turning out - the loyal Tory vote which always votes. On the other side, those who were motivated to vote against the Conservatives when they were in Government are staying at home now the Conservatives have been removed.
Thus, a Ward which might have voted 500-300 against the Conservatives when the latter were in Government now votes 250-300 (making it a Conservative gain on a big increase in vote share). Don't look at vote shares - look at vote numbers and turnouts.
Trump clearly wasn't / isn't an asshat 24/7. He wouldn't have managed to be part of the elite set for so many years or for the Apprentice to run for what 14 seasons.
What Trump is a spoiled rich kid from New York who is most likely a narcissist.
You well play nice with him and he gets want he wants, I am sure he perfectly pleasant*. The I'm the best, the richest, etc, it is that classic NYC wiseguy serial boaster / bullshitter, see 80s stock traders.
Where things nasty is if you don't do what he says or even worse try to prevent him from getting what he wants or cross him. Its like saying no to toddler when they are in cereal aisle.
* I watched a bit of JRE, and Rogan don't push him very hard and after all the BSing about tariffs etc, they have a perfectly nice chat about things like MMA, where he asks sensible questions and listens to Rogan talk about his specialist subject.
Streeting is also I think Labour's most electable alternative to Starmer if he is removed, compared to Rayner, Lammy no contest and he also has the charisma Reeves and Cooper don't even if the latter might be safe pairs of hands
There's been quite a lot of other significant things which haven't had any attention. For example a new defence pact with Germany.
That didn't mean they were all heading for the door (despite all the pleas and protestations they should go).
Most Prime Ministers have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No.10 whether by the electorate or the "men in grey suits". Even Boris Johnson now regrets giving in to the likes of Sir Graham Brady and thinks he should have held out.
No, Starmer will see it out unless there is a monumental scandal or a health issue - the last PM to leave in any way voluntarily was Wilson in 1976 (though there seem all sorts of theories about that). Absent either of those he will be the Prime Minister and Labour leader at the next election - whether he wins re-election or not is another matter.
So Davey may have peaked, Farage hasn't
I think he'd look snappy in flares with a flute
1 - How do you extend the sequestration beyond the life of the tree? What can Paulownia wood grown in the UK be used for? If it is a timber species for construction (a suitable conifer or hardwood), then having it in the structure of a building keeps the carbon captive for another 50-100 years. That increases the length of carbon emissions buffer created.
2 - How does Paulownia behave in the UK? Checking, it grows best in temperatures of 24-33C, and starts growing at soil temperatures of 16C or above afaics. That's not really a long growing season in Scotland, or anywhere in the UK where average soil temperatures 1m down are more like 10-12C.
A Paulownia here will grow to more like 12-15m max, rather than 25-30m max. Applying volume, 1/2 the height means approx 1/8 the volume or mass. Or double if you assume constant mass density per unit volume in a forest.
What is it's actual comparative performance in Scotland with eg the faster growing construction-suitable timbers?
3 - How does Paulownia behave in wet-temperate climates such as the UK? What about soil type?
4 - It would be a new monoculture. We've learnt all about the problems of those in the UK over the last 100 years.
5 - In environmental terms, sequestration is actually what's called a "tailpipe solution". It is better to reduce energy use as far as possible, and decarbonise supply, so we need both less power (fewer windmills, solar panels, power stations, or enormous concrete cylinders built in our estuaries) and fewer, smaller methods to sequester carbon.
We have done fairly well at that, and our average trade weighted carbon emissions are not that far above world average. Still some way to go.
6 Given climate etc, it might actually be more carbon-efficient to grow Paulownias in eg Italy then pay the carbon cost of shipping them here
7 - Might something like creating peat bogs perform better? They fit the Scottish climate.
Background about Paulownia plantations:
https://paulowniatrees.eu/products/requirements-for-growing-paulownia/
Even the King has a net rating of +34% and the Queen +11%.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50427-how-do-britons-feel-about-the-royals-after-two-years-of-king-charles
Starmer by contrast has a net rating of -36%, Sunak -42%, Farage -35%, Badenoch -27%, Jenrick -19% and Davey -7%.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50648-keir-starmer-now-as-unpopular-as-nigel-farage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_age
You think of them as being a lot older, but Thatcher resigned at 65, Brown at 59, Heath at 57, Wilson at 60…
(See my other, nerdy, comment.)
Or perhaps the two are connected?
Good tunes for trail running.
Macron replaced safe, boring Hollande as Presidential candidate in power and Macron was far more charismatic than Hollande was
In my view the BBC is not pro monarchy enough now
The former is achieved by encouraging good women to stand for office, the latter by choosing a woman primarily because she is a woman.
It seems highly improbable to me, given the advance in other technologies, and the cost of this.
And that's without considering the practical objections, which @Richard_Tyndall has previously outlined.
That’s…. £6
(I thought you were trolling us Scotch Experts, and the current one was KCII of North Britain, but I think he's actually KCIII since the titles merged just after 1600, and it's a genuine typo.)
It's a terrible polling question, vague and easy to misinterpret.
The two results are a Harris presidency without control of the Senate, unable to rebalance the democratic norms and small c conservative because they will be blocked in the Houses or Trump with a majority in both and totally unchecked, able to pursue radical changes.
A Harris presidency doesn't threaten the Republican's but a Trump presidency could be a threat to all.
Criticism on here have been justifiable for all of the above but also, and less legitimately, excessive prison sentences for the Farage rioters, release of prisoners to free up space ( although doing it in one day is probably a folly) implementing Cleverly's plan for Chagos, binning the Rwanda stunt, providing structured pay increases to resolve public sector pay disputes, making up narratives about reparations, claiming benefitting from an Arsenal box is more corrupt than the PPE fast lanes for friends outrage, and perhaps most egregious of all claiming economic incompetence on budget policy written by the Daily Telegraph. I could go on.
We have a couple of posters who without any corresponding evidence chip in with a post of no more significance than "Starmer is shite". He might be but fact rather than fiction should help our confirmation.
https://paris-otemachi.owst.jp/
in terms of PERSONAL greed and corruption it is quite astonishing
And the Chagos Surrender was and is a fucking disgrace and a colossal geopolitical error. The fact he was enacting a policy devised by the most insane prime minister in recent decades, Liz Truss, is not exactly an excuse. Aren’t Labour meant to be the “adults”?
The BBC might be in difficulties if polishing the turd of KCI or sanitising the shenanigans of KCII.
I had a plate of excellent gyoza earlier for £2.40
Also wine, amazingly. You can walk in any convenience store and walk out with a decent bottle of red (nothing special, but decent) for £4
if you can contrive to live in Japan on a western salary, right now, you live like The Shogun
Mind you commenting without knowledge is not unique to this particular issue where you’re concerned.
Former racing driver Billy Monger just completed the World Ironman Championship for Comic Relief, and knocked TWO HOURS off the course record for a double amputee in the event.
https://x.com/comicrelief/status/1850458949314637898
I hope he is correct and if he is labour will gain in four years or so.
Anyway this is futile. I don’t know why you make cheap digs at me without even trying to engage or discuss. Still if it makes you feel adequate so be it. I’m wasting no more time pandering to you.
Here's a decent article looking at some of the ways that would be done.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/20/trump-civil-service-00132459
Of course if he's serious about mass deportation, that will require a serious increase in the size and scope of a very dangerous part of that administrative state.
In the main race, Frenchman Sam Laidlow blew up on the run and ended up walking a lot of it, despite having a big lead off the bike. Well done to the winner, Patrick Lange.
There is no evidence whatsoever that either Farage or Davey have peaked.