Howdy, Stranger!

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

Starmer achieves in 5 months what it took the Tories 14 years – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,223
edited December 17 in General
Starmer achieves in 5 months what it took the Tories 14 years – politicalbetting.com

Net approval of the government's managing of the cost of living has fallen to -59, which is now as low as it was when the Tories left office27 – 28 NovemberWell: 15%Badly: 74%Net: -5928 June – 1 JulyWell: 18%Badly: 77%Net: -59https://t.co/0x3WwFt8yV pic.twitter.com/OSh8m90Sk5

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • SKS fans please explain!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046
    Probably all that doom-mongering.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,353
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Wow.

    Blistering paper by Dieter Helm on the current situation with renewables and UK (and world) move towards net zero etc etc.

    Ed Miliband will most certainly not enjoy reading this one.

    https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/climate-realism-time-for-a-re-set/

    This bit is both true, and wildly misleading:



    Specifically, solar is now so spectacularly cheap, that it is simply going to supplant the vast majority of fossil fuels, almost irrespective of government diktat.

    The problem is that energy use is so elastic. As soon as energy becomes cheaper, we come up with new ways of using the stuff. So it never gets very cheap and fossil fuels remain economical.
    Well, I agree that - in the medium term - energy use is pretty elastic. But it's not *that* elastic. Per capita energy consumption in the developed world peaked in the early 1970s.

    And I think it's easy to miss just how cheap solar is becoming. If it's a tenth of the price per KwH of energy of gas or oil, then really, how can fossil fuels compete?
    They can compete by being more controllable. Solar can't be switched on at will.
    Yep, and they'll have a role - particularly gas.

    But gas will only be used at night and when the wind isn't blowing.
    If solar is so cheap that everything else becomes uneconomic, how will all of that infrastructure be funded?
    All of what infrastructure?

    The UK has gas peaking plants - OCGTs - that work perhaps 20 hours a year, when the electricity price is at its very highest level.

    Modern gas plants are incredibly inexpensive to run. Unlike coal, they are low people, low maintenance, and highly automated.
    You said "when the wind isn't blowing". Building and maintaining wind turbines isn't cheap.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,777
    If you stand for nothing..
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,688

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Wow.

    Blistering paper by Dieter Helm on the current situation with renewables and UK (and world) move towards net zero etc etc.

    Ed Miliband will most certainly not enjoy reading this one.

    https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/climate-realism-time-for-a-re-set/

    This bit is both true, and wildly misleading:



    Specifically, solar is now so spectacularly cheap, that it is simply going to supplant the vast majority of fossil fuels, almost irrespective of government diktat.

    The problem is that energy use is so elastic. As soon as energy becomes cheaper, we come up with new ways of using the stuff. So it never gets very cheap and fossil fuels remain economical.
    Well, I agree that - in the medium term - energy use is pretty elastic. But it's not *that* elastic. Per capita energy consumption in the developed world peaked in the early 1970s.

    And I think it's easy to miss just how cheap solar is becoming. If it's a tenth of the price per KwH of energy of gas or oil, then really, how can fossil fuels compete?
    They can compete by being more controllable. Solar can't be switched on at will.
    Yep, and they'll have a role - particularly gas.

    But gas will only be used at night and when the wind isn't blowing.
    If solar is so cheap that everything else becomes uneconomic, how will all of that infrastructure be funded?
    All of what infrastructure?

    The UK has gas peaking plants - OCGTs - that work perhaps 20 hours a year, when the electricity price is at its very highest level.

    Modern gas plants are incredibly inexpensive to run. Unlike coal, they are low people, low maintenance, and highly automated.
    You said "when the wind isn't blowing". Building and maintaining wind turbines isn't cheap.
    Ummm: I thought you were talking about natural gas?

    Irrespective, what does the cost of building have to do with anything? If the guy who built the wind turbines doesn't make his cost of capital or goes bust, then the wind turbines still exist, and still generate power.

    There are many power plants in the UK that went bust at one point or another, usually due to over-leverage, and then got picked up for pennies on the dollar.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 24,010
    It's difficult to disagree with the header, albeit it is a brief analysis.

    I'd add that change needs to be perceptible by about year 3 in some respects, or it won't have sunk in. Perhaps we need to see NHS waiting lists noticeably down by then.

    Also it could be overruled if we have a crisis of some sort - as per the 1983 election and the Falklands.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 24,010

    SKS fans please explain!

    "SKS fans" = wind turbines.

    That's explained - next?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,353
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Wow.

    Blistering paper by Dieter Helm on the current situation with renewables and UK (and world) move towards net zero etc etc.

    Ed Miliband will most certainly not enjoy reading this one.

    https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/climate-realism-time-for-a-re-set/

    This bit is both true, and wildly misleading:



    Specifically, solar is now so spectacularly cheap, that it is simply going to supplant the vast majority of fossil fuels, almost irrespective of government diktat.

    The problem is that energy use is so elastic. As soon as energy becomes cheaper, we come up with new ways of using the stuff. So it never gets very cheap and fossil fuels remain economical.
    Well, I agree that - in the medium term - energy use is pretty elastic. But it's not *that* elastic. Per capita energy consumption in the developed world peaked in the early 1970s.

    And I think it's easy to miss just how cheap solar is becoming. If it's a tenth of the price per KwH of energy of gas or oil, then really, how can fossil fuels compete?
    They can compete by being more controllable. Solar can't be switched on at will.
    Yep, and they'll have a role - particularly gas.

    But gas will only be used at night and when the wind isn't blowing.
    If solar is so cheap that everything else becomes uneconomic, how will all of that infrastructure be funded?
    All of what infrastructure?

    The UK has gas peaking plants - OCGTs - that work perhaps 20 hours a year, when the electricity price is at its very highest level.

    Modern gas plants are incredibly inexpensive to run. Unlike coal, they are low people, low maintenance, and highly automated.
    You said "when the wind isn't blowing". Building and maintaining wind turbines isn't cheap.
    Ummm: I thought you were talking about natural gas?

    Irrespective, what does the cost of building have to do with anything? If the guy who built the wind turbines doesn't make his cost of capital or goes bust, then the wind turbines still exist, and still generate power.

    There are many power plants in the UK that went bust at one point or another, usually due to over-leverage, and then got picked up for pennies on the dollar.
    I was talking about everything else in the context of your panglossian view of solar.

    The lifespan of a turbine is only about 20-25 years. If they're an essential part of the mix despite solar, then how will the economics stack up if the price of electricity becomes "spectacularly cheap"?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,913
    With the constraints of defence spending, the bad Brexit deal, NHS costs to make it work a bit better, Trump tariffs, social care, paying for about 6 million working age people to be ill, bankrupt local government, and law and order/justice, the only possible direction for public finances is hugely up in spending, taxation and borrowing. I think therefore the chance of a significant public sense of being wealthier on average by 2028/9 is more or less nil.

    The government is not messaging that reality very well.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,276
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Wow.

    Blistering paper by Dieter Helm on the current situation with renewables and UK (and world) move towards net zero etc etc.

    Ed Miliband will most certainly not enjoy reading this one.

    https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/climate-realism-time-for-a-re-set/

    This bit is both true, and wildly misleading:



    Specifically, solar is now so spectacularly cheap, that it is simply going to supplant the vast majority of fossil fuels, almost irrespective of government diktat.

    The problem is that energy use is so elastic. As soon as energy becomes cheaper, we come up with new ways of using the stuff. So it never gets very cheap and fossil fuels remain economical.
    Well, I agree that - in the medium term - energy use is pretty elastic. But it's not *that* elastic. Per capita energy consumption in the developed world peaked in the early 1970s.

    And I think it's easy to miss just how cheap solar is becoming. If it's a tenth of the price per KwH of energy of gas or oil, then really, how can fossil fuels compete?
    They can compete by being more controllable. Solar can't be switched on at will.
    Yep, and they'll have a role - particularly gas.

    But gas will only be used at night and when the wind isn't blowing.
    If solar is so cheap that everything else becomes uneconomic, how will all of that infrastructure be funded?
    All of what infrastructure?

    The UK has gas peaking plants - OCGTs - that work perhaps 20 hours a year, when the electricity price is at its very highest level.

    Modern gas plants are incredibly inexpensive to run. Unlike coal, they are low people, low maintenance, and highly automated.
    You said "when the wind isn't blowing". Building and maintaining wind turbines isn't cheap.
    Ummm: I thought you were talking about natural gas?

    Irrespective, what does the cost of building have to do with anything? If the guy who built the wind turbines doesn't make his cost of capital or goes bust, then the wind turbines still exist, and still generate power.

    There are many power plants in the UK that went bust at one point or another, usually due to over-leverage, and then got picked up for pennies on the dollar.
    The CAPEX of CCGT plants has gone through the roof over the past few years. Same as everything else in the process industries.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,688

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Wow.

    Blistering paper by Dieter Helm on the current situation with renewables and UK (and world) move towards net zero etc etc.

    Ed Miliband will most certainly not enjoy reading this one.

    https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/climate-realism-time-for-a-re-set/

    This bit is both true, and wildly misleading:



    Specifically, solar is now so spectacularly cheap, that it is simply going to supplant the vast majority of fossil fuels, almost irrespective of government diktat.

    The problem is that energy use is so elastic. As soon as energy becomes cheaper, we come up with new ways of using the stuff. So it never gets very cheap and fossil fuels remain economical.
    Well, I agree that - in the medium term - energy use is pretty elastic. But it's not *that* elastic. Per capita energy consumption in the developed world peaked in the early 1970s.

    And I think it's easy to miss just how cheap solar is becoming. If it's a tenth of the price per KwH of energy of gas or oil, then really, how can fossil fuels compete?
    They can compete by being more controllable. Solar can't be switched on at will.
    Yep, and they'll have a role - particularly gas.

    But gas will only be used at night and when the wind isn't blowing.
    If solar is so cheap that everything else becomes uneconomic, how will all of that infrastructure be funded?
    All of what infrastructure?

    The UK has gas peaking plants - OCGTs - that work perhaps 20 hours a year, when the electricity price is at its very highest level.

    Modern gas plants are incredibly inexpensive to run. Unlike coal, they are low people, low maintenance, and highly automated.
    You said "when the wind isn't blowing". Building and maintaining wind turbines isn't cheap.
    Ummm: I thought you were talking about natural gas?

    Irrespective, what does the cost of building have to do with anything? If the guy who built the wind turbines doesn't make his cost of capital or goes bust, then the wind turbines still exist, and still generate power.

    There are many power plants in the UK that went bust at one point or another, usually due to over-leverage, and then got picked up for pennies on the dollar.
    I was talking about everything else in the context of your panglossian view of solar.

    The lifespan of a turbine is only about 20-25 years. If they're an essential part of the mix despite solar, then how will the economics stack up if the price of electricity becomes "spectacularly cheap"?
    Oh, in the long run, wind doesn't make sense either. I wouldn't be queuing up to invest in wind turbines today.

    But here's the chart:



    That's solar price per watt over time. Basically, it's dropped by 20% every year. (Wind by contrast has improved by maybe 2%.)

    A bet against solar is a bet that that 20% stops. And it might. But you'd be a brave man betting against it.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,688
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Wow.

    Blistering paper by Dieter Helm on the current situation with renewables and UK (and world) move towards net zero etc etc.

    Ed Miliband will most certainly not enjoy reading this one.

    https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/climate-realism-time-for-a-re-set/

    This bit is both true, and wildly misleading:



    Specifically, solar is now so spectacularly cheap, that it is simply going to supplant the vast majority of fossil fuels, almost irrespective of government diktat.

    The problem is that energy use is so elastic. As soon as energy becomes cheaper, we come up with new ways of using the stuff. So it never gets very cheap and fossil fuels remain economical.
    Well, I agree that - in the medium term - energy use is pretty elastic. But it's not *that* elastic. Per capita energy consumption in the developed world peaked in the early 1970s.

    And I think it's easy to miss just how cheap solar is becoming. If it's a tenth of the price per KwH of energy of gas or oil, then really, how can fossil fuels compete?
    They can compete by being more controllable. Solar can't be switched on at will.
    Yep, and they'll have a role - particularly gas.

    But gas will only be used at night and when the wind isn't blowing.
    If solar is so cheap that everything else becomes uneconomic, how will all of that infrastructure be funded?
    All of what infrastructure?

    The UK has gas peaking plants - OCGTs - that work perhaps 20 hours a year, when the electricity price is at its very highest level.

    Modern gas plants are incredibly inexpensive to run. Unlike coal, they are low people, low maintenance, and highly automated.
    You said "when the wind isn't blowing". Building and maintaining wind turbines isn't cheap.
    Ummm: I thought you were talking about natural gas?

    Irrespective, what does the cost of building have to do with anything? If the guy who built the wind turbines doesn't make his cost of capital or goes bust, then the wind turbines still exist, and still generate power.

    There are many power plants in the UK that went bust at one point or another, usually due to over-leverage, and then got picked up for pennies on the dollar.
    I was talking about everything else in the context of your panglossian view of solar.

    The lifespan of a turbine is only about 20-25 years. If they're an essential part of the mix despite solar, then how will the economics stack up if the price of electricity becomes "spectacularly cheap"?
    Oh, in the long run, wind doesn't make sense either. I wouldn't be queuing up to invest in wind turbines today.

    But here's the chart:



    That's solar price per watt over time. Basically, it's dropped by 20% every year. (Wind by contrast has improved by maybe 2%.)

    A bet against solar is a bet that that 20% stops. And it might. But you'd be a brave man betting against it.
    It's fascinating looking at that chart: in 2021 world installed solar reached about 1TW. In just 2023 and 2024, China will have added (alone) more than 400GW of new solar.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,597

    SKS fans please explain!

    People are not very patient thesedays, but I am surprised at the brevity of the honeymoon.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,276
    If South Korea is heading towards totalitarian autocracy, then the king will have to get their president over for a state visit.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 624
    Cookie said:

    The Tories had the two biggest shocks of the last 50 years to deal with. It's no wonder they struggled.
    Mind you, Labour have to deal with being a bunch of fucking idiots. So also, you can see why they're struggling.

    If one of those is Brexit, which it probably is even if you didn't mean it to be, then it was clearly entirely of their own making.

    My expectation is that quiet, boring Govt competence will slowly improve most peoples lives, whether they realise that in the din of the histrionics from Mail, Telegraph and GB news, faithfully followed by the Beeb, is another matter.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,422
    edited December 3
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Wow.

    Blistering paper by Dieter Helm on the current situation with renewables and UK (and world) move towards net zero etc etc.

    Ed Miliband will most certainly not enjoy reading this one.

    https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/climate-realism-time-for-a-re-set/

    This bit is both true, and wildly misleading:



    Specifically, solar is now so spectacularly cheap, that it is simply going to supplant the vast majority of fossil fuels, almost irrespective of government diktat.

    The problem is that energy use is so elastic. As soon as energy becomes cheaper, we come up with new ways of using the stuff. So it never gets very cheap and fossil fuels remain economical.
    Well, I agree that - in the medium term - energy use is pretty elastic. But it's not *that* elastic. Per capita energy consumption in the developed world peaked in the early 1970s.

    And I think it's easy to miss just how cheap solar is becoming. If it's a tenth of the price per KwH of energy of gas or oil, then really, how can fossil fuels compete?
    They can compete by being more controllable. Solar can't be switched on at will.
    Yep, and they'll have a role - particularly gas.

    But gas will only be used at night and when the wind isn't blowing.
    If solar is so cheap that everything else becomes uneconomic, how will all of that infrastructure be funded?
    All of what infrastructure?

    The UK has gas peaking plants - OCGTs - that work perhaps 20 hours a year, when the electricity price is at its very highest level.

    Modern gas plants are incredibly inexpensive to run. Unlike coal, they are low people, low maintenance, and highly automated.
    You said "when the wind isn't blowing". Building and maintaining wind turbines isn't cheap.
    Ummm: I thought you were talking about natural gas?

    Irrespective, what does the cost of building have to do with anything? If the guy who built the wind turbines doesn't make his cost of capital or goes bust, then the wind turbines still exist, and still generate power.

    There are many power plants in the UK that went bust at one point or another, usually due to over-leverage, and then got picked up for pennies on the dollar.
    I was talking about everything else in the context of your panglossian view of solar.

    The lifespan of a turbine is only about 20-25 years. If they're an essential part of the mix despite solar, then how will the economics stack up if the price of electricity becomes "spectacularly cheap"?
    Oh, in the long run, wind doesn't make sense either. I wouldn't be queuing up to invest in wind turbines today.

    But here's the chart:



    That's solar price per watt over time. Basically, it's dropped by 20% every year. (Wind by contrast has improved by maybe 2%.)

    A bet against solar is a bet that that 20% stops. And it might. But you'd be a brave man betting against it.
    I have solar panels myself, but insolation is awful during the winter in the UK. Right now you get nothing for 16 hours of the day and next to nothing for the other eight.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,597
    Thanks to Andy Cookefor his previous header. I don't agree that the oversimplifications which do indeed take place are all of equal weight when pointing out there are still complexities (no it is not all down to NIMBY's, but the attitude which gives rise to them, locally and nationally, leads to many associated issues), but I appreciate the attempt to offer some kind of solutions within the existing frameworks, given the government will be too scared or lacking in vision to do anything major anyway.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792

    Phil Georgiadis
    @philgeorgiadis.bsky.social‬


    The government will take South Western Railway into public ownership in May, in Labour's first nationalisation of the passenger rail network. Plans set to be announced as early as Wednesday. Story w/
    @pickardje.bsky.social


    https://bsky.app/profile/philgeorgiadis.bsky.social/post/3lcfvkffqjs2p

    Feel sorry for Louise Haigh to be honest. She was a good transport secretary who actually demonstrated a genuine interest in transport, warded off several strikes and had a clear vision for the long overdue renationalisation of the railway.

    Now, the first franchise comes back into public hands (save the six or seven that have already been renationalised because the privateers were absolutely useless) and she's not around to own the announcement.

    I hope she comes back to the role at some point.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,276
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Wow.

    Blistering paper by Dieter Helm on the current situation with renewables and UK (and world) move towards net zero etc etc.

    Ed Miliband will most certainly not enjoy reading this one.

    https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/climate-realism-time-for-a-re-set/

    This bit is both true, and wildly misleading:



    Specifically, solar is now so spectacularly cheap, that it is simply going to supplant the vast majority of fossil fuels, almost irrespective of government diktat.

    The problem is that energy use is so elastic. As soon as energy becomes cheaper, we come up with new ways of using the stuff. So it never gets very cheap and fossil fuels remain economical.
    Well, I agree that - in the medium term - energy use is pretty elastic. But it's not *that* elastic. Per capita energy consumption in the developed world peaked in the early 1970s.

    And I think it's easy to miss just how cheap solar is becoming. If it's a tenth of the price per KwH of energy of gas or oil, then really, how can fossil fuels compete?
    They can compete by being more controllable. Solar can't be switched on at will.
    Yep, and they'll have a role - particularly gas.

    But gas will only be used at night and when the wind isn't blowing.
    If solar is so cheap that everything else becomes uneconomic, how will all of that infrastructure be funded?
    All of what infrastructure?

    The UK has gas peaking plants - OCGTs - that work perhaps 20 hours a year, when the electricity price is at its very highest level.

    Modern gas plants are incredibly inexpensive to run. Unlike coal, they are low people, low maintenance, and highly automated.
    You said "when the wind isn't blowing". Building and maintaining wind turbines isn't cheap.
    Ummm: I thought you were talking about natural gas?

    Irrespective, what does the cost of building have to do with anything? If the guy who built the wind turbines doesn't make his cost of capital or goes bust, then the wind turbines still exist, and still generate power.

    There are many power plants in the UK that went bust at one point or another, usually due to over-leverage, and then got picked up for pennies on the dollar.
    I was talking about everything else in the context of your panglossian view of solar.

    The lifespan of a turbine is only about 20-25 years. If they're an essential part of the mix despite solar, then how will the economics stack up if the price of electricity becomes "spectacularly cheap"?
    Oh, in the long run, wind doesn't make sense either. I wouldn't be queuing up to invest in wind turbines today.

    But here's the chart:



    That's solar price per watt over time. Basically, it's dropped by 20% every year. (Wind by contrast has improved by maybe 2%.)

    A bet against solar is a bet that that 20% stops. And it might. But you'd be a brave man betting against it.
    I have solar panels myself, but insolation is awful during the winter in the UK. Right now you get nothing for 16 hours of the day and next to nothing for the other eight.
    Solar is best suited to locations where the peak leccy demand is for air con in summer, rather than to keep us from spending the winter in the cold and dark.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,153
    Re: the header. Indeed.

    One term latest news.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792

    Labour has been in power for precisely 5 months. The chances of a sea change in how people view either their personal economic prospects, or the nation's, in that time are precisely zero. So the polling in the header is pretty much predicated on the previous government's legacy.

    I don't know, and nor does anyone else, whether folk will feel better off in the next 2-4 years. But it strikes me that patience would be a virtue - nothing that Labour has done will take effect for a while. To give just one example, the significant rise in the national minimum wage may help a significant proportion of people (especially the 'strugglers' in the polling) to cope better with the cost of living. But that doesn't take effect until April 2025.

    Indeed, this is fairly obvious stuff. But – be fair – it's decent morale fodder for our otherwise depressive PB Tory friends.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    FAO @Carnyx FPT

    Yes, it's just imprecise reporting. The network has been in public hands (de jure) since 2014. For the 13 years prior to that it was de facto nationalised – although the government repeatedly denied it to keep it off the books.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,153
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,153

    What first attracted him to the party with $100m in the coffers?
    Yes, that was my first thought. Of course if everyone pretty much leaves the conservatives and joins reform then the latter is just the tory party again.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,777
    He hadn't been a Tory for a long time, and had attacked every leader since IDS.

    At least people now will stop calling him one.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,353

    What first attracted him to the party with $100m in the coffers?
    Yes, that was my first thought. Of course if everyone pretty much leaves the conservatives and joins reform then the latter is just the tory party again.
    Although not really, because "everyone" will exclude the Rory Stewarts and William Hagues.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175
    The effects of COVID and the ongoing war in Ukraine never went away. When you add in the extraordinarily crass decisions made by the new government none of this is a surprise. However, at least they'll go down in smart, expensive suits, dresses and the latest electronic gadgets like true Labour hypocrites. Truly Karma is the proverbial bitch. At least I can claim not to have voted for them - oh and I can enjoy the benefits of the triple lock - it goes a long way in sunny Spain. Reminds me, I need more aftersun!🤣🤣🤣
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,112
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Wow.

    Blistering paper by Dieter Helm on the current situation with renewables and UK (and world) move towards net zero etc etc.

    Ed Miliband will most certainly not enjoy reading this one.

    https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/climate-realism-time-for-a-re-set/

    This bit is both true, and wildly misleading:



    Specifically, solar is now so spectacularly cheap, that it is simply going to supplant the vast majority of fossil fuels, almost irrespective of government diktat.

    The problem is that energy use is so elastic. As soon as energy becomes cheaper, we come up with new ways of using the stuff. So it never gets very cheap and fossil fuels remain economical.
    Well, I agree that - in the medium term - energy use is pretty elastic. But it's not *that* elastic. Per capita energy consumption in the developed world peaked in the early 1970s.

    And I think it's easy to miss just how cheap solar is becoming. If it's a tenth of the price per KwH of energy of gas or oil, then really, how can fossil fuels compete?
    They can compete by being more controllable. Solar can't be switched on at will.
    Yep, and they'll have a role - particularly gas.

    But gas will only be used at night and when the wind isn't blowing.
    If solar is so cheap that everything else becomes uneconomic, how will all of that infrastructure be funded?
    All of what infrastructure?

    The UK has gas peaking plants - OCGTs - that work perhaps 20 hours a year, when the electricity price is at its very highest level.

    Modern gas plants are incredibly inexpensive to run. Unlike coal, they are low people, low maintenance, and highly automated.
    You said "when the wind isn't blowing". Building and maintaining wind turbines isn't cheap.
    Ummm: I thought you were talking about natural gas?

    Irrespective, what does the cost of building have to do with anything? If the guy who built the wind turbines doesn't make his cost of capital or goes bust, then the wind turbines still exist, and still generate power.

    There are many power plants in the UK that went bust at one point or another, usually due to over-leverage, and then got picked up for pennies on the dollar.
    I was talking about everything else in the context of your panglossian view of solar.

    The lifespan of a turbine is only about 20-25 years. If they're an essential part of the mix despite solar, then how will the economics stack up if the price of electricity becomes "spectacularly cheap"?
    Oh, in the long run, wind doesn't make sense either. I wouldn't be queuing up to invest in wind turbines today.

    But here's the chart:



    That's solar price per watt over time. Basically, it's dropped by 20% every year. (Wind by contrast has improved by maybe 2%.)

    A bet against solar is a bet that that 20% stops. And it might. But you'd be a brave man betting against it.
    Should the likes of Spain, Portugal not be building huge wind farms with interconnectors to the rest of Europe?

    Build 500%+ of their own electricity needs and become huge energy exporters.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,065
    Ratters said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Wow.

    Blistering paper by Dieter Helm on the current situation with renewables and UK (and world) move towards net zero etc etc.

    Ed Miliband will most certainly not enjoy reading this one.

    https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/climate-realism-time-for-a-re-set/

    This bit is both true, and wildly misleading:



    Specifically, solar is now so spectacularly cheap, that it is simply going to supplant the vast majority of fossil fuels, almost irrespective of government diktat.

    The problem is that energy use is so elastic. As soon as energy becomes cheaper, we come up with new ways of using the stuff. So it never gets very cheap and fossil fuels remain economical.
    Well, I agree that - in the medium term - energy use is pretty elastic. But it's not *that* elastic. Per capita energy consumption in the developed world peaked in the early 1970s.

    And I think it's easy to miss just how cheap solar is becoming. If it's a tenth of the price per KwH of energy of gas or oil, then really, how can fossil fuels compete?
    They can compete by being more controllable. Solar can't be switched on at will.
    Yep, and they'll have a role - particularly gas.

    But gas will only be used at night and when the wind isn't blowing.
    If solar is so cheap that everything else becomes uneconomic, how will all of that infrastructure be funded?
    All of what infrastructure?

    The UK has gas peaking plants - OCGTs - that work perhaps 20 hours a year, when the electricity price is at its very highest level.

    Modern gas plants are incredibly inexpensive to run. Unlike coal, they are low people, low maintenance, and highly automated.
    You said "when the wind isn't blowing". Building and maintaining wind turbines isn't cheap.
    Ummm: I thought you were talking about natural gas?

    Irrespective, what does the cost of building have to do with anything? If the guy who built the wind turbines doesn't make his cost of capital or goes bust, then the wind turbines still exist, and still generate power.

    There are many power plants in the UK that went bust at one point or another, usually due to over-leverage, and then got picked up for pennies on the dollar.
    I was talking about everything else in the context of your panglossian view of solar.

    The lifespan of a turbine is only about 20-25 years. If they're an essential part of the mix despite solar, then how will the economics stack up if the price of electricity becomes "spectacularly cheap"?
    Oh, in the long run, wind doesn't make sense either. I wouldn't be queuing up to invest in wind turbines today.

    But here's the chart:



    That's solar price per watt over time. Basically, it's dropped by 20% every year. (Wind by contrast has improved by maybe 2%.)

    A bet against solar is a bet that that 20% stops. And it might. But you'd be a brave man betting against it.
    Should the likes of Spain, Portugal not be building huge wind farms with interconnectors to the rest of Europe?

    Build 500%+ of their own electricity needs and become huge energy exporters.
    Yes, all of North Africa too.
  • Shecorns88Shecorns88 Posts: 292

    Labour has been in power for precisely 5 months. The chances of a sea change in how people view either their personal economic prospects, or the nation's, in that time are precisely zero. So the polling in the header is pretty much predicated on the previous government's legacy.

    I don't know, and nor does anyone else, whether folk will feel better off in the next 2-4 years. But it strikes me that patience would be a virtue - nothing that Labour has done will take effect for a while. To give just one example, the significant rise in the national minimum wage may help a significant proportion of people (especially the 'strugglers' in the polling) to cope better with the cost of living. But that doesn't take effect until April 2025.

    Indeed, this is fairly obvious stuff. But – be fair – it's decent morale fodder for our otherwise depressive PB Tory friends.
    Spot on.

    Judge Labour in December 2027.

    Only then will we see the impact of their economic policies and other Public service policies.

    Of course the script for this 5 month period was written by Kuenssberg, Rugby, Preston and Co on the morning of 5th July.

    From day 1 Labour attacked, Tories given an amnesty and Farage treated like he'd won 100 seats.

    It won't be easy, it was never going to be easy, but anyone drawing conclusions now needs to give their head a wobble.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,098
    Dopermean said:

    Cookie said:

    The Tories had the two biggest shocks of the last 50 years to deal with. It's no wonder they struggled.
    Mind you, Labour have to deal with being a bunch of fucking idiots. So also, you can see why they're struggling.

    If one of those is Brexit, which it probably is even if you didn't mean it to be, then it was clearly entirely of their own making.

    My expectation is that quiet, boring Govt competence will slowly improve most peoples lives, whether they realise that in the din of the histrionics from Mail, Telegraph and GB news, faithfully followed by the Beeb, is another matter.
    I was talking about Covid and Ukraine. Both of which dwarf any impact Brexit might have had.

    I still view Brexit as a positive, personally. Nothing about the last 8 years has dissuaded me from the view that the EU is engaged in a slow motion car crash that the less entangled in it we are, the better.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    edited December 3
    There’s a fascinating article in - IIRC (sorry, jet lag) - the FT about Musk and the UK

    Apparently his deep interest in British politics is not just coz he likes arguing on TwiX about Woke. It is because he is of part British descent, and he believes the UK plays a crucial role as the mothership of the English speaking nations, inc the USA. So what happens in Britain “really matters” around the world - his words

    I hope he gives Reform a billion quid and they win in 2028

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,793
    felix said:

    The effects of COVID and the ongoing war in Ukraine never went away. When you add in the extraordinarily crass decisions made by the new government none of this is a surprise. However, at least they'll go down in smart, expensive suits, dresses and the latest electronic gadgets like true Labour hypocrites. Truly Karma is the proverbial bitch. At least I can claim not to have voted for them - oh and I can enjoy the benefits of the triple lock - it goes a long way in sunny Spain. Reminds me, I need more aftersun!🤣🤣🤣

    Don't forget the back of your ears.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,975

    He hadn't been a Tory for a long time, and had attacked every leader since IDS.

    At least people now will stop calling him one.
    I laughed off Jenkyns last week but this seems more important. BBC R4 PM were busy smoothing Farage's ego earlier on his free money from Musk issue. They love Farage.

    That is as bad for Labour as it is for Conservatives. What is especially bad for the Conservatives in particular is they seem to have lost their media to Farage.

    Is a RefCon merger the answer? HYUFD has suggested since the election they are the legitimate government of the nation.

    Anyway whilst I am on, Alexa, define a w*****.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77jx4d5748o.amp
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,065
    Leon said:

    There’s a fascinating article in - IIRC (sorry, jet lag) - the FT about Musk and the UK

    Apparently his deep interest in British politics is not just coz he likes arguing on TwiX about Woke. It is because he is of part British descent, and he believes the UK plays a crucial role as the mothership of the English speaking nations, inc the USA. So what happens in Britain “really matters” around the world - his words

    I hope he gives Reform a billion quid and they win in 2028

    I reckon he just really doesn't like Starmer and is fucking with Labour as much as he can for the lols.
  • If SKS wants to leave something behind it could be removing planning regulations that make building impossible.

    Don’t like the look of something? Too bad.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,156

    He hadn't been a Tory for a long time, and had attacked every leader since IDS.

    At least people now will stop calling him one.
    I laughed off Jenkyns last week but this seems more important. BBC R4 PM were busy smoothing Farage's ego earlier on his free money from Musk issue. They love Farage.

    That is as bad for Labour as it is for Conservatives. What is especially bad for the Conservatives in particular is they seem to have lost their media to Farage.

    Is a RefCon merger the answer? HYUFD has suggested since the election they are the legitimate government of the nation.

    Anyway whilst I am on, Alexa, define a w*****.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77jx4d5748o.amp
    Farage will take over the Tories in around 2026. As you say, he already has their media and more money. It is just a matter of time and to let the Tory members go through their stages of grief.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,972
    edited December 3
    Ratters said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Wow.

    Blistering paper by Dieter Helm on the current situation with renewables and UK (and world) move towards net zero etc etc.

    Ed Miliband will most certainly not enjoy reading this one.

    https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/climate-realism-time-for-a-re-set/

    This bit is both true, and wildly misleading:



    Specifically, solar is now so spectacularly cheap, that it is simply going to supplant the vast majority of fossil fuels, almost irrespective of government diktat.

    The problem is that energy use is so elastic. As soon as energy becomes cheaper, we come up with new ways of using the stuff. So it never gets very cheap and fossil fuels remain economical.
    Well, I agree that - in the medium term - energy use is pretty elastic. But it's not *that* elastic. Per capita energy consumption in the developed world peaked in the early 1970s.

    And I think it's easy to miss just how cheap solar is becoming. If it's a tenth of the price per KwH of energy of gas or oil, then really, how can fossil fuels compete?
    They can compete by being more controllable. Solar can't be switched on at will.
    Yep, and they'll have a role - particularly gas.

    But gas will only be used at night and when the wind isn't blowing.
    If solar is so cheap that everything else becomes uneconomic, how will all of that infrastructure be funded?
    All of what infrastructure?

    The UK has gas peaking plants - OCGTs - that work perhaps 20 hours a year, when the electricity price is at its very highest level.

    Modern gas plants are incredibly inexpensive to run. Unlike coal, they are low people, low maintenance, and highly automated.
    You said "when the wind isn't blowing". Building and maintaining wind turbines isn't cheap.
    Ummm: I thought you were talking about natural gas?

    Irrespective, what does the cost of building have to do with anything? If the guy who built the wind turbines doesn't make his cost of capital or goes bust, then the wind turbines still exist, and still generate power.

    There are many power plants in the UK that went bust at one point or another, usually due to over-leverage, and then got picked up for pennies on the dollar.
    I was talking about everything else in the context of your panglossian view of solar.

    The lifespan of a turbine is only about 20-25 years. If they're an essential part of the mix despite solar, then how will the economics stack up if the price of electricity becomes "spectacularly cheap"?
    Oh, in the long run, wind doesn't make sense either. I wouldn't be queuing up to invest in wind turbines today.

    But here's the chart:



    That's solar price per watt over time. Basically, it's dropped by 20% every year. (Wind by contrast has improved by maybe 2%.)

    A bet against solar is a bet that that 20% stops. And it might. But you'd be a brave man betting against it.
    Should the likes of Spain, Portugal not be building huge wind farms with interconnectors to the rest of Europe?

    Build 500%+ of their own electricity needs and become huge energy exporters.
    🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿💨🇪🇸☀️🇵🇹☀️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿💨🇪🇸☀️🇵🇹☀️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿💨🇪🇸☀️🇵🇹☀️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿💨🇪🇸☀️🇵🇹☀️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿💨🇪🇸☀️🇵🇹☀️

    I would do lots of £££££ but by then the Groat will be the world's reserve currency.
  • Labour has been in power for precisely 5 months. The chances of a sea change in how people view either their personal economic prospects, or the nation's, in that time are precisely zero. So the polling in the header is pretty much predicated on the previous government's legacy.

    I don't know, and nor does anyone else, whether folk will feel better off in the next 2-4 years. But it strikes me that patience would be a virtue - nothing that Labour has done will take effect for a while. To give just one example, the significant rise in the national minimum wage may help a significant proportion of people (especially the 'strugglers' in the polling) to cope better with the cost of living. But that doesn't take effect until April 2025.

    Indeed, this is fairly obvious stuff. But – be fair – it's decent morale fodder for our otherwise depressive PB Tory friends.
    Spot on.

    Judge Labour in December 2027.

    Only then will we see the impact of their economic policies and other Public service policies.

    Of course the script for this 5 month period was written by Kuenssberg, Rugby, Preston and Co on the morning of 5th July.

    From day 1 Labour attacked, Tories given an amnesty and Farage treated like he'd won 100 seats.

    It won't be easy, it was never going to be easy, but anyone drawing conclusions now needs to give their head a wobble.
    Much like me after 2019, PB is in mourning. But over time they will get over it.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    There’s a fascinating article in - IIRC (sorry, jet lag) - the FT about Musk and the UK

    Apparently his deep interest in British politics is not just coz he likes arguing on TwiX about Woke. It is because he is of part British descent, and he believes the UK plays a crucial role as the mothership of the English speaking nations, inc the USA. So what happens in Britain “really matters” around the world - his words

    I hope he gives Reform a billion quid and they win in 2028

    I reckon he just really doesn't like Starmer and is fucking with Labour as much as he can for the lols.
    The article was one of several on Musk, together they were very persuasive. But yeah I think he genuinely hates Starmer AS WELL

    Who doesn’t hate Starmer?
  • Rachel Johnson backs Greg Wallace. God help us.

    Does she think any man should be able to walk into a boardroom naked with only a sock covering their penis? That’s what he did.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,353

    He hadn't been a Tory for a long time, and had attacked every leader since IDS.

    At least people now will stop calling him one.
    I laughed off Jenkyns last week but this seems more important. BBC R4 PM were busy smoothing Farage's ego earlier on his free money from Musk issue. They love Farage.

    That is as bad for Labour as it is for Conservatives. What is especially bad for the Conservatives in particular is they seem to have lost their media to Farage.

    Is a RefCon merger the answer? HYUFD has suggested since the election they are the legitimate government of the nation.

    Anyway whilst I am on, Alexa, define a w*****.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77jx4d5748o.amp
    Farage will take over the Tories in around 2026. As you say, he already has their media and more money. It is just a matter of time and to let the Tory members go through their stages of grief.
    Why would he need to take them over when he can just drive them out of business or keep them around as a foil for Labour/Lib Dems in seats where Reform aren’t competitive?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,864
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    There’s a fascinating article in - IIRC (sorry, jet lag) - the FT about Musk and the UK

    Apparently his deep interest in British politics is not just coz he likes arguing on TwiX about Woke. It is because he is of part British descent, and he believes the UK plays a crucial role as the mothership of the English speaking nations, inc the USA. So what happens in Britain “really matters” around the world - his words

    I hope he gives Reform a billion quid and they win in 2028

    I reckon he just really doesn't like Starmer and is fucking with Labour as much as he can for the lols.
    The article was one of several on Musk, together they were very persuasive. But yeah I think he genuinely hates Starmer AS WELL

    Who doesn’t hate Starmer?
    Well, not everyone. Would you believe, there was a poster on here who actually voted for him?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,913
    Betting post:
    Does anyone else think that Tim Montgomerie going to Reform may be a story with a great deal more significance than it may seem to have at first sight?

    In my mental oddschecker it changes the odds a little bit about Tory and Reform related matters.

    And it raises from one (Farage of course) to two the number of Reform people whose words may be of more than purely comedy interest. And he is a voice a lot of the media (not just GB News_) takes seriously as a pundit. DYOR.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,072
    Ratters said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Wow.

    Blistering paper by Dieter Helm on the current situation with renewables and UK (and world) move towards net zero etc etc.

    Ed Miliband will most certainly not enjoy reading this one.

    https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/climate-realism-time-for-a-re-set/

    This bit is both true, and wildly misleading:



    Specifically, solar is now so spectacularly cheap, that it is simply going to supplant the vast majority of fossil fuels, almost irrespective of government diktat.

    The problem is that energy use is so elastic. As soon as energy becomes cheaper, we come up with new ways of using the stuff. So it never gets very cheap and fossil fuels remain economical.
    Well, I agree that - in the medium term - energy use is pretty elastic. But it's not *that* elastic. Per capita energy consumption in the developed world peaked in the early 1970s.

    And I think it's easy to miss just how cheap solar is becoming. If it's a tenth of the price per KwH of energy of gas or oil, then really, how can fossil fuels compete?
    They can compete by being more controllable. Solar can't be switched on at will.
    Yep, and they'll have a role - particularly gas.

    But gas will only be used at night and when the wind isn't blowing.
    If solar is so cheap that everything else becomes uneconomic, how will all of that infrastructure be funded?
    All of what infrastructure?

    The UK has gas peaking plants - OCGTs - that work perhaps 20 hours a year, when the electricity price is at its very highest level.

    Modern gas plants are incredibly inexpensive to run. Unlike coal, they are low people, low maintenance, and highly automated.
    You said "when the wind isn't blowing". Building and maintaining wind turbines isn't cheap.
    Ummm: I thought you were talking about natural gas?

    Irrespective, what does the cost of building have to do with anything? If the guy who built the wind turbines doesn't make his cost of capital or goes bust, then the wind turbines still exist, and still generate power.

    There are many power plants in the UK that went bust at one point or another, usually due to over-leverage, and then got picked up for pennies on the dollar.
    I was talking about everything else in the context of your panglossian view of solar.

    The lifespan of a turbine is only about 20-25 years. If they're an essential part of the mix despite solar, then how will the economics stack up if the price of electricity becomes "spectacularly cheap"?
    Oh, in the long run, wind doesn't make sense either. I wouldn't be queuing up to invest in wind turbines today.

    But here's the chart:



    That's solar price per watt over time. Basically, it's dropped by 20% every year. (Wind by contrast has improved by maybe 2%.)

    A bet against solar is a bet that that 20% stops. And it might. But you'd be a brave man betting against it.
    Should the likes of Spain, Portugal not be building huge wind farms with interconnectors to the rest of Europe?

    Build 500%+ of their own electricity needs and become huge energy exporters.
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/dec/01/morocco-to-great-britain-subsea-power-cable-former-tesco-boss-dave-lewis
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,793
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    There’s a fascinating article in - IIRC (sorry, jet lag) - the FT about Musk and the UK

    Apparently his deep interest in British politics is not just coz he likes arguing on TwiX about Woke. It is because he is of part British descent, and he believes the UK plays a crucial role as the mothership of the English speaking nations, inc the USA. So what happens in Britain “really matters” around the world - his words

    I hope he gives Reform a billion quid and they win in 2028

    I reckon he just really doesn't like Starmer and is fucking with Labour as much as he can for the lols.
    Far closer to the truth than Leon's starry eyed take.
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 4,092
    edited December 3
    Mark Vipond has 7K followers yet is at the top of every single post that Labour or Tories make.

    Tell me the algorithm isn’t completely broken.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,793

    He hadn't been a Tory for a long time, and had attacked every leader since IDS.

    At least people now will stop calling him one.
    I laughed off Jenkyns last week but this seems more important. BBC R4 PM were busy smoothing Farage's ego earlier on his free money from Musk issue. They love Farage.

    That is as bad for Labour as it is for Conservatives. What is especially bad for the Conservatives in particular is they seem to have lost their media to Farage.

    Is a RefCon merger the answer? HYUFD has suggested since the election they are the legitimate government of the nation.

    Anyway whilst I am on, Alexa, define a w*****.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77jx4d5748o.amp
    Farage will take over the Tories in around 2026. As you say, he already has their media and more money. It is just a matter of time and to let the Tory members go through their stages of grief.
    This is a strong view you have, isn't it. Have you found a way to bet on it?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    There’s a fascinating article in - IIRC (sorry, jet lag) - the FT about Musk and the UK

    Apparently his deep interest in British politics is not just coz he likes arguing on TwiX about Woke. It is because he is of part British descent, and he believes the UK plays a crucial role as the mothership of the English speaking nations, inc the USA. So what happens in Britain “really matters” around the world - his words

    I hope he gives Reform a billion quid and they win in 2028

    I reckon he just really doesn't like Starmer and is fucking with Labour as much as he can for the lols.
    The article was one of several on Musk, together they were very persuasive. But yeah I think he genuinely hates Starmer AS WELL

    Who doesn’t hate Starmer?
    Well, not everyone. Would you believe, there was a poster on here who actually voted for him?
    Fie on you Sirrah, albeit PB is oft a vile nest of scoundrels, assuredly nonesuch churl has wagged his tongue herein
  • Is there much movement in the younger vote to Reform yet?

    I haven’t noticed any in my younger cohort as yet. But one to watch.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,065
    I also find it extremely worrying that 43% of people occasionally or more often struggle to buy food for their families. That figure should be the priority of the government because 43% means millions of households with reasonable incomes are struggling to make ends meet, not just those on low or fixed incomes.

    I don't see how £30bn in price rises and wage freezes from April will help, though.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,353
    algarkirk said:

    Betting post:
    Does anyone else think that Tim Montgomerie going to Reform may be a story with a great deal more significance than it may seem to have at first sight?

    In my mental oddschecker it changes the odds a little bit about Tory and Reform related matters.

    And it raises from one (Farage of course) to two the number of Reform people whose words may be of more than purely comedy interest. And he is a voice a lot of the media (not just GB News_) takes seriously as a pundit. DYOR.

    I think it’s a straw in the wind for large parts of the traditional Tory media ecosystem defecting.
  • algarkirk said:

    Betting post:
    Does anyone else think that Tim Montgomerie going to Reform may be a story with a great deal more significance than it may seem to have at first sight?

    In my mental oddschecker it changes the odds a little bit about Tory and Reform related matters.

    And it raises from one (Farage of course) to two the number of Reform people whose words may be of more than purely comedy interest. And he is a voice a lot of the media (not just GB News_) takes seriously as a pundit. DYOR.

    I think it’s a straw in the wind for large parts of the traditional Tory media ecosystem defecting.
    This might be the only time I’ve ever agreed with you.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,710
    edited December 3

    Is there much movement in the younger vote to Reform yet?

    I haven’t noticed any in my younger cohort as yet. But one to watch.

    Sky is suggesting so

    https://news.sky.com/story/something-remarkable-is-happening-with-gen-z-is-reform-uk-winning-the-bro-vote-13265490
  • Tim Montgomerie going to Reform reminds me of the Heritage Foundation going to Trump.

    Wholesale shift to the populist right.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    edited December 3

    Is there much movement in the younger vote to Reform yet?

    I haven’t noticed any in my younger cohort as yet. But one to watch.

    Trump has extraordinary levels of support in young British men - most of these are young men:

    One in three British young people would vote for Trump
    Thirty-two per cent of UK voters aged 18 to 24 would back Republican, a three-fold increase since same polling before 2020 election

    Telegraph
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,597

    Is there much movement in the younger vote to Reform yet?

    I haven’t noticed any in my younger cohort as yet. But one to watch.

    Sky is suggesting so


    https://news.sky.com/story/something-remarkable-is-happening-with-gen-z-is-reform-uk-winning-the-bro-vote-13265490
    I'd say the next locals could be very interesting, since Reform do seem like they are trying harder in general now they have MPs, but given how low turnout is for locals I'm not sure enough young people would vote to be clear if Reform are making inroads there - only if the grey vote was returning to the Tories or not.
  • Shecorns88Shecorns88 Posts: 292
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    There’s a fascinating article in - IIRC (sorry, jet lag) - the FT about Musk and the UK

    Apparently his deep interest in British politics is not just coz he likes arguing on TwiX about Woke. It is because he is of part British descent, and he believes the UK plays a crucial role as the mothership of the English speaking nations, inc the USA. So what happens in Britain “really matters” around the world - his words

    I hope he gives Reform a billion quid and they win in 2028

    I reckon he just really doesn't like Starmer and is fucking with Labour as much as he can for the lols.
    Musk has only one dominant thread in his DNA and it's got feck all to do with the UK

    He's a full on card carrying fascist Afrikaaner.

    He has no place in the UK, should have no role in the UK and is more dangerous than any mad mullah

    Ban the fecker.

    Blow his satellites out of orbit

    Ban his cars.

    Ban Twitter

    If he won't shut up, put a bounty on his head like Bin Laden.

    He is a bigger threat to the globe right now than any other living person.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,558
    On the Sycamore Gap story:

    The court case, which was due to start today, has been delayed.

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24716340.one-sycamore-gap-accused-excused-attendance-court-due-illness/
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,246

    Rachel Johnson backs Greg Wallace. God help us.

    Does she think any man should be able to walk into a boardroom naked with only a sock covering their penis? That’s what he did.

    Well this is what her father used to do:

    "In 1976, during the water shortage of that hot summer, Stanley pretends that it is impossible to wash any clothes and so forces his two au pairs to walk round the house naked, before beginning an affair with one of them."

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/culture/40738/whos-to-blame-for-boris-johnson

    So we do need to give her some slack. The men she was brought up with were exceptionally inappropriate, so she knows no boundaries.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,924
    Reform are a bunch of idiots. I'm not sure the news changes that.

  • MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    There’s a fascinating article in - IIRC (sorry, jet lag) - the FT about Musk and the UK

    Apparently his deep interest in British politics is not just coz he likes arguing on TwiX about Woke. It is because he is of part British descent, and he believes the UK plays a crucial role as the mothership of the English speaking nations, inc the USA. So what happens in Britain “really matters” around the world - his words

    I hope he gives Reform a billion quid and they win in 2028

    I reckon he just really doesn't like Starmer and is fucking with Labour as much as he can for the lols.
    Musk has only one dominant thread in his DNA and it's got feck all to do with the UK

    He's a full on card carrying fascist Afrikaaner.

    He has no place in the UK, should have no role in the UK and is more dangerous than any mad mullah

    Ban the fecker.

    Blow his satellites out of orbit

    Ban his cars.

    Ban Twitter

    If he won't shut up, put a bounty on his head like Bin Laden.

    He is a bigger threat to the globe right now than any other living person.

    He is a danger, but I do like the way his cars look.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,558

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    There’s a fascinating article in - IIRC (sorry, jet lag) - the FT about Musk and the UK

    Apparently his deep interest in British politics is not just coz he likes arguing on TwiX about Woke. It is because he is of part British descent, and he believes the UK plays a crucial role as the mothership of the English speaking nations, inc the USA. So what happens in Britain “really matters” around the world - his words

    I hope he gives Reform a billion quid and they win in 2028

    I reckon he just really doesn't like Starmer and is fucking with Labour as much as he can for the lols.
    Musk has only one dominant thread in his DNA and it's got feck all to do with the UK

    He's a full on card carrying fascist Afrikaaner.

    He has no place in the UK, should have no role in the UK and is more dangerous than any mad mullah

    Ban the fecker.

    Blow his satellites out of orbit

    Ban his cars.

    Ban Twitter

    If he won't shut up, put a bounty on his head like Bin Laden.

    He is a bigger threat to the globe right now than any other living person.

    "Blow his satellites out of orbit"

    That may cause a very non-optimal situation for everything in low Earth orbit.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,597

    On the Sycamore Gap story:

    The court case, which was due to start today, has been delayed.

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24716340.one-sycamore-gap-accused-excused-attendance-court-due-illness/

    That's a shame, I really want to know what on earth lay behind that event.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,558

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    There’s a fascinating article in - IIRC (sorry, jet lag) - the FT about Musk and the UK

    Apparently his deep interest in British politics is not just coz he likes arguing on TwiX about Woke. It is because he is of part British descent, and he believes the UK plays a crucial role as the mothership of the English speaking nations, inc the USA. So what happens in Britain “really matters” around the world - his words

    I hope he gives Reform a billion quid and they win in 2028

    I reckon he just really doesn't like Starmer and is fucking with Labour as much as he can for the lols.
    Musk has only one dominant thread in his DNA and it's got feck all to do with the UK

    He's a full on card carrying fascist Afrikaaner.

    He has no place in the UK, should have no role in the UK and is more dangerous than any mad mullah

    Ban the fecker.

    Blow his satellites out of orbit

    Ban his cars.

    Ban Twitter

    If he won't shut up, put a bounty on his head like Bin Laden.

    He is a bigger threat to the globe right now than any other living person.

    He is a danger, but I do like the way his cars look.
    Even Cybertruck?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    There’s a fascinating article in - IIRC (sorry, jet lag) - the FT about Musk and the UK

    Apparently his deep interest in British politics is not just coz he likes arguing on TwiX about Woke. It is because he is of part British descent, and he believes the UK plays a crucial role as the mothership of the English speaking nations, inc the USA. So what happens in Britain “really matters” around the world - his words

    I hope he gives Reform a billion quid and they win in 2028

    I reckon he just really doesn't like Starmer and is fucking with Labour as much as he can for the lols.
    Far closer to the truth than Leon's starry eyed take.
    oh

    “Musk had explained his interest in the UK by saying: “You are the mother country of the entirety of the English speaking world, it really matters.””

    https://www.ft.com/content/987f70fd-c718-4998-a097-f4a8f4a462b7
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,558
    kle4 said:

    On the Sycamore Gap story:

    The court case, which was due to start today, has been delayed.

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24716340.one-sycamore-gap-accused-excused-attendance-court-due-illness/

    That's a shame, I really want to know what on earth lay behind that event.
    What's behind the delay is also of rather dramatic interest. He's in hospital, allegedly critical condition.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,246
    MaxPB said:

    I also find it extremely worrying that 43% of people occasionally or more often struggle to buy food for their families. That figure should be the priority of the government because 43% means millions of households with reasonable incomes are struggling to make ends meet, not just those on low or fixed incomes.

    I don't see how £30bn in price rises and wage freezes from April will help, though.

    Those on minimum wage do get a chunky payrise then though.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,558
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    There’s a fascinating article in - IIRC (sorry, jet lag) - the FT about Musk and the UK

    Apparently his deep interest in British politics is not just coz he likes arguing on TwiX about Woke. It is because he is of part British descent, and he believes the UK plays a crucial role as the mothership of the English speaking nations, inc the USA. So what happens in Britain “really matters” around the world - his words

    I hope he gives Reform a billion quid and they win in 2028

    I reckon he just really doesn't like Starmer and is fucking with Labour as much as he can for the lols.
    Far closer to the truth than Leon's starry eyed take.
    oh

    “Musk had explained his interest in the UK by saying: “You are the mother country of the entirety of the English speaking world, it really matters.””

    https://www.ft.com/content/987f70fd-c718-4998-a097-f4a8f4a462b7
    Musk lies.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,924
    Leon said:

    Is there much movement in the younger vote to Reform yet?

    I haven’t noticed any in my younger cohort as yet. But one to watch.

    Trump has extraordinary levels of support in young British men - most of these are young men:

    One in three British young people would vote for Trump
    Thirty-two per cent of UK voters aged 18 to 24 would back Republican, a three-fold increase since same polling before 2020 election

    Telegraph
    Your definition of 'extraordinary' differs from mine. Did you misspell modest?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    There’s a fascinating article in - IIRC (sorry, jet lag) - the FT about Musk and the UK

    Apparently his deep interest in British politics is not just coz he likes arguing on TwiX about Woke. It is because he is of part British descent, and he believes the UK plays a crucial role as the mothership of the English speaking nations, inc the USA. So what happens in Britain “really matters” around the world - his words

    I hope he gives Reform a billion quid and they win in 2028

    I reckon he just really doesn't like Starmer and is fucking with Labour as much as he can for the lols.
    Musk has only one dominant thread in his DNA and it's got feck all to do with the UK

    He's a full on card carrying fascist Afrikaaner.

    He has no place in the UK, should have no role in the UK and is more dangerous than any mad mullah

    Ban the fecker.

    Blow his satellites out of orbit

    Ban his cars.

    Ban Twitter

    If he won't shut up, put a bounty on his head like Bin Laden.

    He is a bigger threat to the globe right now than any other living person.

    lol!
  • MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    There’s a fascinating article in - IIRC (sorry, jet lag) - the FT about Musk and the UK

    Apparently his deep interest in British politics is not just coz he likes arguing on TwiX about Woke. It is because he is of part British descent, and he believes the UK plays a crucial role as the mothership of the English speaking nations, inc the USA. So what happens in Britain “really matters” around the world - his words

    I hope he gives Reform a billion quid and they win in 2028

    I reckon he just really doesn't like Starmer and is fucking with Labour as much as he can for the lols.
    Musk has only one dominant thread in his DNA and it's got feck all to do with the UK

    He's a full on card carrying fascist Afrikaaner.

    He has no place in the UK, should have no role in the UK and is more dangerous than any mad mullah

    Ban the fecker.

    Blow his satellites out of orbit

    Ban his cars.

    Ban Twitter

    If he won't shut up, put a bounty on his head like Bin Laden.

    He is a bigger threat to the globe right now than any other living person.

    He is a danger, but I do like the way his cars look.
    Even Cybertruck?
    No, that looks poor.
    I don't know how he managed to make the darker-coloured Teslas look so good.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,793

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    There’s a fascinating article in - IIRC (sorry, jet lag) - the FT about Musk and the UK

    Apparently his deep interest in British politics is not just coz he likes arguing on TwiX about Woke. It is because he is of part British descent, and he believes the UK plays a crucial role as the mothership of the English speaking nations, inc the USA. So what happens in Britain “really matters” around the world - his words

    I hope he gives Reform a billion quid and they win in 2028

    I reckon he just really doesn't like Starmer and is fucking with Labour as much as he can for the lols.
    Musk has only one dominant thread in his DNA and it's got feck all to do with the UK

    He's a full on card carrying fascist Afrikaaner.

    He has no place in the UK, should have no role in the UK and is more dangerous than any mad mullah

    Ban the fecker.

    Blow his satellites out of orbit

    Ban his cars.

    Ban Twitter

    If he won't shut up, put a bounty on his head like Bin Laden.

    He is a bigger threat to the globe right now than any other living person.
    ✊️😊
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,156
    kinabalu said:

    He hadn't been a Tory for a long time, and had attacked every leader since IDS.

    At least people now will stop calling him one.
    I laughed off Jenkyns last week but this seems more important. BBC R4 PM were busy smoothing Farage's ego earlier on his free money from Musk issue. They love Farage.

    That is as bad for Labour as it is for Conservatives. What is especially bad for the Conservatives in particular is they seem to have lost their media to Farage.

    Is a RefCon merger the answer? HYUFD has suggested since the election they are the legitimate government of the nation.

    Anyway whilst I am on, Alexa, define a w*****.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77jx4d5748o.amp
    Farage will take over the Tories in around 2026. As you say, he already has their media and more money. It is just a matter of time and to let the Tory members go through their stages of grief.
    This is a strong view you have, isn't it. Have you found a way to bet on it?
    The betting markets are a lot more wary of Farage than the pb establishment so not in any volume, no. Double figures Farage Conservative leader for next election is decent but hard to get matched in anything significant.

    I think old schoolers are under estimating a few things:

    Farage is a very good communicator
    Contrary to the accepted view he is not interested it is a long stated and consistent ambition of Farage
    The power of the global billionaires like Musk
    Their influence on media and news
    The contempt the country has for the current rump of the Conservative party and leadership
    It is hard for Refuk to win outright even if they top the polls as the Cons will block a lot of seats in FPTP
  • Shecorns88Shecorns88 Posts: 292

    Tim Montgomerie going to Reform reminds me of the Heritage Foundation going to Trump.

    Wholesale shift to the populist right.

    It says far more about the abject failure of Kemi Badenoch than anything else.

    Another dead duck Tory leader.

    She seems to do a 2 day week... Wednesday and Thursday.

    COMPLETELY invisible.

    NO Policies

    Thats why the increasingly irrelevant Montgomerie has jumped to join the other dead ducks in Reform
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,353

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    There’s a fascinating article in - IIRC (sorry, jet lag) - the FT about Musk and the UK

    Apparently his deep interest in British politics is not just coz he likes arguing on TwiX about Woke. It is because he is of part British descent, and he believes the UK plays a crucial role as the mothership of the English speaking nations, inc the USA. So what happens in Britain “really matters” around the world - his words

    I hope he gives Reform a billion quid and they win in 2028

    I reckon he just really doesn't like Starmer and is fucking with Labour as much as he can for the lols.
    Far closer to the truth than Leon's starry eyed take.
    oh

    “Musk had explained his interest in the UK by saying: “You are the mother country of the entirety of the English speaking world, it really matters.””

    https://www.ft.com/content/987f70fd-c718-4998-a097-f4a8f4a462b7
    Musk lies.
    You need to distinguish between a lie and an opinion.
  • The occasionally stylish lunatic and man-child, I would see Musk as.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,545
    edited December 3
    Foxy said:

    Rachel Johnson backs Greg Wallace. God help us.

    Does she think any man should be able to walk into a boardroom naked with only a sock covering their penis? That’s what he did.

    Well this is what her father used to do:

    "In 1976, during the water shortage of that hot summer, Stanley pretends that it is impossible to wash any clothes and so forces his two au pairs to walk round the house naked, before beginning an affair with one of them."

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/culture/40738/whos-to-blame-for-boris-johnson

    So we do need to give her some slack. The men she was brought up with were exceptionally inappropriate, so she knows no boundaries.
    Johnson Snr behaviour has been far worse than his son (see what happened to Boris mother) but for a couple of years he was given this weird promenance in the media as a cuddly slightly eccentric old bloke appearing on everything.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,597

    algarkirk said:

    Betting post:
    Does anyone else think that Tim Montgomerie going to Reform may be a story with a great deal more significance than it may seem to have at first sight?

    In my mental oddschecker it changes the odds a little bit about Tory and Reform related matters.

    And it raises from one (Farage of course) to two the number of Reform people whose words may be of more than purely comedy interest. And he is a voice a lot of the media (not just GB News_) takes seriously as a pundit. DYOR.

    I think it’s a straw in the wind for large parts of the traditional Tory media ecosystem defecting.
    Indeed. Certain parts of the associated (though not establishment) right leaning media like Guido* have been salivating at the prospect of Farage and Reform replacing them for some time, if some reasonably well known people in politics and media start coming out openly on their side despite the end of the Sunak era, then the prospect of building something long term increases.

    *he's constantly pushing how the government needs to essentially beg forgiveness for past comments about Trump (something I doubt they would suggest had we had a right leaning government and a Democrat president).
  • Greg inappropriately touched a woman’s bottom.

    Let’s be honest. It was always going to go this way.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,545

    Greg inappropriately touched a woman’s bottom.

    Let’s be honest. It was always going to go this way.

    Allegedly.....
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,065
    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    I also find it extremely worrying that 43% of people occasionally or more often struggle to buy food for their families. That figure should be the priority of the government because 43% means millions of households with reasonable incomes are struggling to make ends meet, not just those on low or fixed incomes.

    I don't see how £30bn in price rises and wage freezes from April will help, though.

    Those on minimum wage do get a chunky payrise then though.
    And how much of that gets eaten up by inflation in basic goods? Companies aren't going to sacrifice margins, they never do.
  • Shecorns88Shecorns88 Posts: 292
    Leon said:

    Is there much movement in the younger vote to Reform yet?

    I haven’t noticed any in my younger cohort as yet. But one to watch.

    Trump has extraordinary levels of support in young British men - most of these are young men:

    One in three British young people would vote for Trump
    Thirty-two per cent of UK voters aged 18 to 24 would back Republican, a three-fold increase since same polling before 2020 election

    Telegraph
    Yep they wear MAGA caps whilst worshipping Tommy Robinson and Andrew Tate and carrying petrol bombs.

    Mind you scrawling an x on a ballot paper might just be the limit of their IQ
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Is there much movement in the younger vote to Reform yet?

    I haven’t noticed any in my younger cohort as yet. But one to watch.

    Trump has extraordinary levels of support in young British men - most of these are young men:

    One in three British young people would vote for Trump
    Thirty-two per cent of UK voters aged 18 to 24 would back Republican, a three-fold increase since same polling before 2020 election

    Telegraph
    Your definition of 'extraordinary' differs from mine. Did you misspell modest?
    I can’t find the exact stats but I think support for Trump among young British men is not far off 50% (which makes sense if it is 32% in all young people and women are FAR more wary)

    And yeah, I find that extraordinary
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,597
    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Is there much movement in the younger vote to Reform yet?

    I haven’t noticed any in my younger cohort as yet. But one to watch.

    Trump has extraordinary levels of support in young British men - most of these are young men:

    One in three British young people would vote for Trump
    Thirty-two per cent of UK voters aged 18 to 24 would back Republican, a three-fold increase since same polling before 2020 election

    Telegraph
    Your definition of 'extraordinary' differs from mine. Did you misspell modest?
    If it is true there is 1 in 3 supporting Trump among young people I would describe that as extraordinary, and it would presumably be more than 1 in 3 among young men. Given pre-election only Reform voters backed him by majority, not even Tory voters did.
  • Greg inappropriately touched a woman’s bottom.

    Let’s be honest. It was always going to go this way.

    Allegedly.....
    I think the odds he’s not at best a creepy man is basically zero.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,065

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    There’s a fascinating article in - IIRC (sorry, jet lag) - the FT about Musk and the UK

    Apparently his deep interest in British politics is not just coz he likes arguing on TwiX about Woke. It is because he is of part British descent, and he believes the UK plays a crucial role as the mothership of the English speaking nations, inc the USA. So what happens in Britain “really matters” around the world - his words

    I hope he gives Reform a billion quid and they win in 2028

    I reckon he just really doesn't like Starmer and is fucking with Labour as much as he can for the lols.
    Musk has only one dominant thread in his DNA and it's got feck all to do with the UK

    He's a full on card carrying fascist Afrikaaner.

    He has no place in the UK, should have no role in the UK and is more dangerous than any mad mullah

    Ban the fecker.

    Blow his satellites out of orbit

    Ban his cars.

    Ban Twitter

    If he won't shut up, put a bounty on his head like Bin Laden.

    He is a bigger threat to the globe right now than any other living person.

    Haven't you got homework to be getting on with, your teachers won't be happy if you miss the deadlines.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,061
    FPT
    Carnyx said:

    Phil Georgiadis
    @philgeorgiadis.bsky.social‬


    The government will take South Western Railway into public ownership in May, in Labour's first nationalisation of the passenger rail network. Plans set to be announced as early as Wednesday. Story w/
    @pickardje.bsky.social


    https://bsky.app/profile/philgeorgiadis.bsky.social/post/3lcfvkffqjs2p

    Isn't the rail network nationalised? It's only the train operator we are dealing with here?
    Well there is my local train service going tits up. Thinks with a sigh that I need to buy another car
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,156
    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Is there much movement in the younger vote to Reform yet?

    I haven’t noticed any in my younger cohort as yet. But one to watch.

    Trump has extraordinary levels of support in young British men - most of these are young men:

    One in three British young people would vote for Trump
    Thirty-two per cent of UK voters aged 18 to 24 would back Republican, a three-fold increase since same polling before 2020 election

    Telegraph
    Your definition of 'extraordinary' differs from mine. Did you misspell modest?
    I can’t find the exact stats but I think support for Trump among young British men is not far off 50% (which makes sense if it is 32% in all young people and women are FAR more wary)

    And yeah, I find that extraordinary
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2024/11/06/5295a/1

    18-24 is 13% very happy vs 37% very unhappy. 28% happy vs 45% unhappy. No gender breakdown.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,924
    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Is there much movement in the younger vote to Reform yet?

    I haven’t noticed any in my younger cohort as yet. But one to watch.

    Trump has extraordinary levels of support in young British men - most of these are young men:

    One in three British young people would vote for Trump
    Thirty-two per cent of UK voters aged 18 to 24 would back Republican, a three-fold increase since same polling before 2020 election

    Telegraph
    Your definition of 'extraordinary' differs from mine. Did you misspell modest?
    I can’t find the exact stats but I think support for Trump among young British men is not far off 50% (which makes sense if it is 32% in all young people and women are FAR more wary)

    And yeah, I find that extraordinary
    I'd find it hard to believe that young British men know much at all about Trump. You and I are old British men - we know more than the young, but do we really know very much? Would a poll saying that most young British men believe Mozart was a communist have any meaning?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,793

    kinabalu said:

    He hadn't been a Tory for a long time, and had attacked every leader since IDS.

    At least people now will stop calling him one.
    I laughed off Jenkyns last week but this seems more important. BBC R4 PM were busy smoothing Farage's ego earlier on his free money from Musk issue. They love Farage.

    That is as bad for Labour as it is for Conservatives. What is especially bad for the Conservatives in particular is they seem to have lost their media to Farage.

    Is a RefCon merger the answer? HYUFD has suggested since the election they are the legitimate government of the nation.

    Anyway whilst I am on, Alexa, define a w*****.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77jx4d5748o.amp
    Farage will take over the Tories in around 2026. As you say, he already has their media and more money. It is just a matter of time and to let the Tory members go through their stages of grief.
    This is a strong view you have, isn't it. Have you found a way to bet on it?
    The betting markets are a lot more wary of Farage than the pb establishment so not in any volume, no. Double figures Farage Conservative leader for next election is decent but hard to get matched in anything significant.

    I think old schoolers are under estimating a few things:

    Farage is a very good communicator
    Contrary to the accepted view he is not interested it is a long stated and consistent ambition of Farage
    The power of the global billionaires like Musk
    Their influence on media and news
    The contempt the country has for the current rump of the Conservative party and leadership
    It is hard for Refuk to win outright even if they top the polls as the Cons will block a lot of seats in FPTP
    And add in the (probable) continuation of a sluggish UK economy (under any party but voters tend not to accept that).

    Yes, I can see it. But I'm hoping Trump implodes and if so that will change things.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,972
    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    I also find it extremely worrying that 43% of people occasionally or more often struggle to buy food for their families. That figure should be the priority of the government because 43% means millions of households with reasonable incomes are struggling to make ends meet, not just those on low or fixed incomes.

    I don't see how £30bn in price rises and wage freezes from April will help, though.

    Those on minimum wage do get a chunky payrise then though.
    Might not be needed, market rate for shelf stackers is above current NMW. Will be interesting to see what happens with participation rates and unemployment, but if Labour squeezes immigration, there is a chance they remain low.

    The interaction with employer NICs is super interesting. I suspect many expectations will be confounded. (That's not to say I support the increase, much rather they'd done income tax and/or council tax).
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,489
    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Carnyx said:

    Phil Georgiadis
    @philgeorgiadis.bsky.social‬


    The government will take South Western Railway into public ownership in May, in Labour's first nationalisation of the passenger rail network. Plans set to be announced as early as Wednesday. Story w/
    @pickardje.bsky.social


    https://bsky.app/profile/philgeorgiadis.bsky.social/post/3lcfvkffqjs2p

    Isn't the rail network nationalised? It's only the train operator we are dealing with here?
    Well there is my local train service going tits up. Thinks with a sigh that I need to buy another car
    I think the point is that the mammaries are already upwards. Certainly with the ECML it was better under renationalisation, so don't buy the wheels quite yet.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,094

    Greg inappropriately touched a woman’s bottom.

    Let’s be honest. It was always going to go this way.

    Gregg.
This discussion has been closed.