Assertion: Shecorns88 is a @Leon bot. He's talked about such a thing for a while, but I'm pretty sure he's done it.
Heathener has been mooted. It was not denied. But then there were those who claimed Heathener was Leon.
It's the absolute certainty which is unnerving. Like a lefty HYFUD but with less self-reflection.
Like most bots it never denies.
I’m deeply flattered that you believe I have the multitasking skills to lead my busy life AND create and nurture entire new sock puppet characters on PB
Consider, I am in Santa Marta, Colombia, on the Caribbean coast, I only arrived yesterday (so: major jet lag). Tomorrow I go onwards up the River Maddalena, one of the great rivers of the world
I have just written a piece for the Gazette this morning. I am also mapping out TWO major year-long flint projects, using various assistants, and also reading related books (like W G Sebald). I am also running the general chores of the self employed (taxes, etc), keeping up with friends and family daily and also exploring Colombia for my Gazette Travel piece (and researching the local history). And finally I am arranging trips for earlier next year, including Thailand, Cambodia and Uruguay
Trust me. I do not have time to create bots on PB
Sebald? A rather morose-looking German who gained fame when his novels/travelogues/histories (no-one really knows how to classify them) were translated into English. Interesting guy. Presume you're not following him in a long traipse across the East Anglian badlands?
Thinking of writing something in a sebaldian style
Strikes me that his style kinda died with him, and he only used it once, properly, in Rings of Saturn
Worth reviving and evolving
With photos? Quite a defining part of the Sebald oeuvre.
I’m sure soon some Tories will actually accept they lost in July and go back to being objective.
Some have and are providing interesting analysis. Others, are not.
I know it hurts now. But you will get over it.
For all sakes I hope your party gets back to being a decent opposition as right now they are nowhere.
May I address this issue
As a former conservative activist, member and voter, [apart from Blair twice], I am relieved the party is out of office and deservedly so
It does not hurt me at all, but what concerns me is that I expected much more from Starmer and it is clear, even to sensible Labour supporters, that he is failing but Labour's difficulties have been compounded by a seriously bad budget from Reeves which prioritised the public sector at the expense of the wealth creators
I am relaxed about Kemi Badenoch, as she has time to develop and eventually put forward new thoughtful policy ideas, but in the meantime Reform and Trump are a very real problem for both parties but maybe more so Labour as Farage has stated Labour are in his sights and ultimately there may be some form of electoral agreement between Reform and the Conservatives
I hope that the conservatives replace the triple lock with an inflation plus 1% rise and increase basic tax to create 25p but abolish NI for workers and increase the allowance to £15,000 to shield the lower paid,
Also something on housing and student loans would be good
The danger is upset Labour supporters brand all opponents as hard right, but that is a mistake as many are certainly not hard right but have a different view on how to encourage growth then the one presently being followed
There are as many in the Tory Party, including a number of defeated Mps who are far closer to the mainstream Labour Party than they are to Farage and Musk
That is patently obvious
They may have to keep Farage out in 2029 by tactically voting against him, as Labour won't destroy the Tory brand, but Farage may well do it.
Better the devil you know.
No - there are some who would join the Lib Dems but very few who would support labour
I agree. Tory loathing of Labour has returned in force, there will be vanishingly few Tory-Labour switchers
Are you talking about the rump PCP or Tories more generally?
Assertion: Shecorns88 is a @Leon bot. He's talked about such a thing for a while, but I'm pretty sure he's done it.
Heathener has been mooted. It was not denied. But then there were those who claimed Heathener was Leon.
It's the absolute certainty which is unnerving. Like a lefty HYFUD but with less self-reflection.
Like most bots it never denies.
I’m deeply flattered that you believe I have the multitasking skills to lead my busy life AND create and nurture entire new sock puppet characters on PB
Consider, I am in Santa Marta, Colombia, on the Caribbean coast, I only arrived yesterday (so: major jet lag). Tomorrow I go onwards up the River Maddalena, one of the great rivers of the world
I have just written a piece for the Gazette this morning. I am also mapping out TWO major year-long flint projects, using various assistants, and also reading related books (like W G Sebald). I am also running the general chores of the self employed (taxes, etc), keeping up with friends and family daily and also exploring Colombia for my Gazette Travel piece (and researching the local history). And finally I am arranging trips for earlier next year, including Thailand, Cambodia and Uruguay
Trust me. I do not have time to create bots on PB
Sebald? A rather morose-looking German who gained fame when his novels/travelogues/histories (no-one really knows how to classify them) were translated into English. Interesting guy. Presume you're not following him in a long traipse across the East Anglian badlands?
Thinking of writing something in a sebaldian style
Strikes me that his style kinda died with him, and he only used it once, properly, in Rings of Saturn
Worth reviving and evolving
With photos? Quite a defining part of the Sebald oeuvre.
I’m sure soon some Tories will actually accept they lost in July and go back to being objective.
Some have and are providing interesting analysis. Others, are not.
I know it hurts now. But you will get over it.
For all sakes I hope your party gets back to being a decent opposition as right now they are nowhere.
May I address this issue
As a former conservative activist, member and voter, [apart from Blair twice], I am relieved the party is out of office and deservedly so
It does not hurt me at all, but what concerns me is that I expected much more from Starmer and it is clear, even to sensible Labour supporters, that he is failing but Labour's difficulties have been compounded by a seriously bad budget from Reeves which prioritised the public sector at the expense of the wealth creators
I am relaxed about Kemi Badenoch, as she has time to develop and eventually put forward new thoughtful policy ideas, but in the meantime Reform and Trump are a very real problem for both parties but maybe more so Labour as Farage has stated Labour are in his sights and ultimately there may be some form of electoral agreement between Reform and the Conservatives
I hope that the conservatives replace the triple lock with an inflation plus 1% rise and increase basic tax to create 25p but abolish NI for workers and increase the allowance to £15,000 to shield the lower paid,
Also something on housing and student loans would be good
The danger is upset Labour supporters brand all opponents as hard right, but that is a mistake as many are certainly not hard right but have a different view on how to encourage growth then the one presently being followed
There are as many in the Tory Party, including a number of defeated Mps who are far closer to the mainstream Labour Party than they are to Farage and Musk
That is patently obvious
They may have to keep Farage out in 2029 by tactically voting against him, as Labour won't destroy the Tory brand, but Farage may well do it.
Better the devil you know.
No - there are some who would join the Lib Dems but very few who would support labour
I agree. Tory loathing of Labour has returned in force, there will be vanishingly few Tory-Labour switchers
Are you talking about the rump PCP or Tories more generally?
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.
Export to whom?
I can see bits at the margins - 10, 15% of consumption.
I can't see 1200-1300 GWh being in demand per annum.
I’m sure soon some Tories will actually accept they lost in July and go back to being objective.
Some have and are providing interesting analysis. Others, are not.
I know it hurts now. But you will get over it.
For all sakes I hope your party gets back to being a decent opposition as right now they are nowhere.
May I address this issue
As a former conservative activist, member and voter, [apart from Blair twice], I am relieved the party is out of office and deservedly so
It does not hurt me at all, but what concerns me is that I expected much more from Starmer and it is clear, even to sensible Labour supporters, that he is failing but Labour's difficulties have been compounded by a seriously bad budget from Reeves which prioritised the public sector at the expense of the wealth creators
I am relaxed about Kemi Badenoch, as she has time to develop and eventually put forward new thoughtful policy ideas, but in the meantime Reform and Trump are a very real problem for both parties but maybe more so Labour as Farage has stated Labour are in his sights and ultimately there may be some form of electoral agreement between Reform and the Conservatives
I hope that the conservatives replace the triple lock with an inflation plus 1% rise and increase basic tax to create 25p but abolish NI for workers and increase the allowance to £15,000 to shield the lower paid,
Also something on housing and student loans would be good
The danger is upset Labour supporters brand all opponents as hard right, but that is a mistake as many are certainly not hard right but have a different view on how to encourage growth then the one presently being followed
There are as many in the Tory Party, including a number of defeated Mps who are far closer to the mainstream Labour Party than they are to Farage and Musk
That is patently obvious
They may have to keep Farage out in 2029 by tactically voting against him, as Labour won't destroy the Tory brand, but Farage may well do it.
Better the devil you know.
No - there are some who would join the Lib Dems but very few who would support labour
I agree. Tory loathing of Labour has returned in force, there will be vanishingly few Tory-Labour switchers
It's also about power and patronage. The likes of Sean Bailey defected for opportunities, because Labour looked like being in power for ages. For the likes of Nokes to be tempted to join Labour, Starmer has to look like he's around for at least two terms. He doesn't.
Seems to be a Scottish speciality. A LibDem, elected in Edinburgh by-election, has just resigned less than a week after polling day. Red faces all round.
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.””
You need to distinguish between a lie and an opinion.
"My firstborn child died in my arms. I felt his last heartbeat," is not an 'opinion'. And it is denied (angrily) by his ex-wife.
If he lies about his child dying in his arms, what else would he lie about.
"Ah", I hear you say. "She is obviously lying."
Well, if you want another example, his lies about his father owning, or not owning an emerald mine.
There are many, many others.
There are many examples of Starmer lying too, but that's not the point.
If he says he thinks that Britain, as the mother country, matters to the fate of global Anglosphere politics, that's an opinion, not something that can be a lie, unless you suspect that he doesn't really think this, but what is the evidence for that?
You can't just handwave that away. This is a man who lies about his first child dying in his arms. That's the state of the guy you're supporting.
(Worse: as I recall he said it when he was stating why he would not let Alex Jones back on Twix. Guess what? Ales Jones is back on Twix...)
And Joe Biden said he would never pardon his son...
Biden’s decision is the correct one. By ruling out a pardon, he is demonstrating respect for the rule of law. He might also be taking pains not to serve as an enabler for a child who has struggled with drug addiction. Whether he’s motivated by his respect for the law, his desire to see his son take accountability for his actions or a combination of the two, he’s making the right call.
Biden has fucked the Democrats as a “bastion of morality” for years. The Hunter Pardon will be thrown at them every time they attempt to take the high ground on anything, and it will work
Jon Stewart did a brutal and amusing riff on it - you can catch it on YouTube here
I’m sure soon some Tories will actually accept they lost in July and go back to being objective.
Some have and are providing interesting analysis. Others, are not.
I know it hurts now. But you will get over it.
For all sakes I hope your party gets back to being a decent opposition as right now they are nowhere.
May I address this issue
As a former conservative activist, member and voter, [apart from Blair twice], I am relieved the party is out of office and deservedly so
It does not hurt me at all, but what concerns me is that I expected much more from Starmer and it is clear, even to sensible Labour supporters, that he is failing but Labour's difficulties have been compounded by a seriously bad budget from Reeves which prioritised the public sector at the expense of the wealth creators
I am relaxed about Kemi Badenoch, as she has time to develop and eventually put forward new thoughtful policy ideas, but in the meantime Reform and Trump are a very real problem for both parties but maybe more so Labour as Farage has stated Labour are in his sights and ultimately there may be some form of electoral agreement between Reform and the Conservatives
I hope that the conservatives replace the triple lock with an inflation plus 1% rise and increase basic tax to create 25p but abolish NI for workers and increase the allowance to £15,000 to shield the lower paid,
Also something on housing and student loans would be good
The danger is upset Labour supporters brand all opponents as hard right, but that is a mistake as many are certainly not hard right but have a different view on how to encourage growth then the one presently being followed
There are as many in the Tory Party, including a number of defeated Mps who are far closer to the mainstream Labour Party than they are to Farage and Musk
That is patently obvious
They may have to keep Farage out in 2029 by tactically voting against him, as Labour won't destroy the Tory brand, but Farage may well do it.
Better the devil you know.
No - there are some who would join the Lib Dems but very few who would support labour
I agree. Tory loathing of Labour has returned in force, there will be vanishingly few Tory-Labour switchers
Are you talking about the rump PCP or Tories more generally?
All conservatives
Complacency.
One of the two mental states of Tories (the other being panic).
I’m sure soon some Tories will actually accept they lost in July and go back to being objective.
Some have and are providing interesting analysis. Others, are not.
I know it hurts now. But you will get over it.
For all sakes I hope your party gets back to being a decent opposition as right now they are nowhere.
May I address this issue
As a former conservative activist, member and voter, [apart from Blair twice], I am relieved the party is out of office and deservedly so
It does not hurt me at all, but what concerns me is that I expected much more from Starmer and it is clear, even to sensible Labour supporters, that he is failing but Labour's difficulties have been compounded by a seriously bad budget from Reeves which prioritised the public sector at the expense of the wealth creators
I am relaxed about Kemi Badenoch, as she has time to develop and eventually put forward new thoughtful policy ideas, but in the meantime Reform and Trump are a very real problem for both parties but maybe more so Labour as Farage has stated Labour are in his sights and ultimately there may be some form of electoral agreement between Reform and the Conservatives
I hope that the conservatives replace the triple lock with an inflation plus 1% rise and increase basic tax to create 25p but abolish NI for workers and increase the allowance to £15,000 to shield the lower paid,
Also something on housing and student loans would be good
The danger is upset Labour supporters brand all opponents as hard right, but that is a mistake as many are certainly not hard right but have a different view on how to encourage growth then the one presently being followed
There are as many in the Tory Party, including a number of defeated Mps who are far closer to the mainstream Labour Party than they are to Farage and Musk
That is patently obvious
They may have to keep Farage out in 2029 by tactically voting against him, as Labour won't destroy the Tory brand, but Farage may well do it.
Better the devil you know.
No - there are some who would join the Lib Dems but very few who would support labour
I agree. Tory loathing of Labour has returned in force, there will be vanishingly few Tory-Labour switchers
Are you talking about the rump PCP or Tories more generally?
All conservatives
Complacency.
One of two mental states of Tories (the other being panic).
No panic here - just real concern for a growth and job destroying budget
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.
Export to whom?
I can see bits at the margins - 10, 15% of consumption.
I can't see 1200-1300 GWh being in demand per annum.
We currently import huge amounts of gas and oil from questionable countries.
Why would we (and Germany etc) not import green electricity from close allies if falling solar panel prices make cheap energy from it abundant and cheaper than fossil fuels? Especially as more of our energy usage comes from electricity rather than oil over time.
Land is more scarce in the UK for large solar panel farms, and clearly we have less sun.
Assertion: Shecorns88 is a @Leon bot. He's talked about such a thing for a while, but I'm pretty sure he's done it.
Heathener has been mooted. It was not denied. But then there were those who claimed Heathener was Leon.
It's the absolute certainty which is unnerving. Like a lefty HYFUD but with less self-reflection.
Like most bots it never denies.
I’m deeply flattered that you believe I have the multitasking skills to lead my busy life AND create and nurture entire new sock puppet characters on PB
Consider, I am in Santa Marta, Colombia, on the Caribbean coast, I only arrived yesterday (so: major jet lag). Tomorrow I go onwards up the River Maddalena, one of the great rivers of the world
I have just written a piece for the Gazette this morning. I am also mapping out TWO major year-long flint projects, using various assistants, and also reading related books (like W G Sebald). I am also running the general chores of the self employed (taxes, etc), keeping up with friends and family daily and also exploring Colombia for my Gazette Travel piece (and researching the local history). And finally I am arranging trips for earlier next year, including Thailand, Cambodia and Uruguay
Trust me. I do not have time to create bots on PB
I'm...on a train. I have a bottle of diet Coke and a Kind caramel almond and sea salt bar.
Assertion: Shecorns88 is a @Leon bot. He's talked about such a thing for a while, but I'm pretty sure he's done it.
Heathener has been mooted. It was not denied. But then there were those who claimed Heathener was Leon.
It's the absolute certainty which is unnerving. Like a lefty HYFUD but with less self-reflection.
Like most bots it never denies.
I’m deeply flattered that you believe I have the multitasking skills to lead my busy life AND create and nurture entire new sock puppet characters on PB
Consider, I am in Santa Marta, Colombia, on the Caribbean coast, I only arrived yesterday (so: major jet lag). Tomorrow I go onwards up the River Maddalena, one of the great rivers of the world
I have just written a piece for the Gazette this morning. I am also mapping out TWO major year-long flint projects, using various assistants, and also reading related books (like W G Sebald). I am also running the general chores of the self employed (taxes, etc), keeping up with friends and family daily and also exploring Colombia for my Gazette Travel piece (and researching the local history). And finally I am arranging trips for earlier next year, including Thailand, Cambodia and Uruguay
Trust me. I do not have time to create bots on PB
I'm amazed you ever found time to vote for Starmer in among all that.
Art showcasing Scottish Sikh community wins Turner Prize
Jasleen Kaur - an artist whose latest exhibition uses a vintage Ford Escort, worship bells and Irn-Bru to celebrate the Scottish Sikh community - has won this year's Turner Prize.
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.
Export to whom?
I can see bits at the margins - 10, 15% of consumption.
I can't see 1200-1300 GWh being in demand per annum.
I hope there is. One of the points of zero marginal cost electricity is the potential for huge economic growth. There's the possibility of completely new industries.
Assertion: Shecorns88 is a @Leon bot. He's talked about such a thing for a while, but I'm pretty sure he's done it.
Heathener has been mooted. It was not denied. But then there were those who claimed Heathener was Leon.
It's the absolute certainty which is unnerving. Like a lefty HYFUD but with less self-reflection.
Like most bots it never denies.
I’m deeply flattered that you believe I have the multitasking skills to lead my busy life AND create and nurture entire new sock puppet characters on PB
Consider, I am in Santa Marta, Colombia, on the Caribbean coast, I only arrived yesterday (so: major jet lag). Tomorrow I go onwards up the River Maddalena, one of the great rivers of the world
I have just written a piece for the Gazette this morning. I am also mapping out TWO major year-long flint projects, using various assistants, and also reading related books (like W G Sebald). I am also running the general chores of the self employed (taxes, etc), keeping up with friends and family daily and also exploring Colombia for my Gazette Travel piece (and researching the local history). And finally I am arranging trips for earlier next year, including Thailand, Cambodia and Uruguay
Trust me. I do not have time to create bots on PB
I'm...on a train. I have a bottle of diet Coke and a Kind caramel almond and sea salt bar.
😎
I have now eaten the Kind bar. This travel writing lark is easy. "Having consumed the bar, I am further consumed with hunger, the hunger impelled by a long journey. But the ache is accompanied by sadness, the recall of times when the Mars bar before it was still a prospect instead of a memory..."
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.
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?
There is a cache in the name and the history. People identified ( note past tense) with the brand and will again, although it will be a bit like the Jaguar rebrand from William Lyons's sleek Mark 2 to Lady Penelope's pink gin palace. Perhaps Reform will turn the Tory tree logo into a swastika tree depiction.
OT yet again. So what do we think are the chances of Barnier's Government surviving the vote of no confidence tomorrow? The basic numbers seem to say he is toast but is it that simple? .
Assertion: Shecorns88 is a @Leon bot. He's talked about such a thing for a while, but I'm pretty sure he's done it.
Heathener has been mooted. It was not denied. But then there were those who claimed Heathener was Leon.
It's the absolute certainty which is unnerving. Like a lefty HYFUD but with less self-reflection.
Like most bots it never denies.
I’m deeply flattered that you believe I have the multitasking skills to lead my busy life AND create and nurture entire new sock puppet characters on PB
Consider, I am in Santa Marta, Colombia, on the Caribbean coast, I only arrived yesterday (so: major jet lag). Tomorrow I go onwards up the River Maddalena, one of the great rivers of the world
I have just written a piece for the Gazette this morning. I am also mapping out TWO major year-long flint projects, using various assistants, and also reading related books (like W G Sebald). I am also running the general chores of the self employed (taxes, etc), keeping up with friends and family daily and also exploring Colombia for my Gazette Travel piece (and researching the local history). And finally I am arranging trips for earlier next year, including Thailand, Cambodia and Uruguay
Trust me. I do not have time to create bots on PB
I'm...on a train. I have a bottle of diet Coke and a Kind caramel almond and sea salt bar.
😎
I have now eaten the Kind bar. This travel writing lark is easy. "Having consumed the bar, I am further consumed with hunger, the hunger impelled by a long journey. But the ache is accompanied by sadness, the recall of times when the Mars bar before it was still a prospect instead of a memory..."
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.
Export to whom?
I can see bits at the margins - 10, 15% of consumption.
I can't see 1200-1300 GWh being in demand per annum.
I hope there is. One of the points of zero marginal cost electricity is the potential for huge economic growth. There's the possibility of completely new industries.
The author of the article that sparked this discussion seems to fundementally disagree with you on that.
Assertion: Shecorns88 is a @Leon bot. He's talked about such a thing for a while, but I'm pretty sure he's done it.
Heathener has been mooted. It was not denied. But then there were those who claimed Heathener was Leon.
It's the absolute certainty which is unnerving. Like a lefty HYFUD but with less self-reflection.
Like most bots it never denies.
I’m deeply flattered that you believe I have the multitasking skills to lead my busy life AND create and nurture entire new sock puppet characters on PB
Consider, I am in Santa Marta, Colombia, on the Caribbean coast, I only arrived yesterday (so: major jet lag). Tomorrow I go onwards up the River Maddalena, one of the great rivers of the world
I have just written a piece for the Gazette this morning. I am also mapping out TWO major year-long flint projects, using various assistants, and also reading related books (like W G Sebald). I am also running the general chores of the self employed (taxes, etc), keeping up with friends and family daily and also exploring Colombia for my Gazette Travel piece (and researching the local history). And finally I am arranging trips for earlier next year, including Thailand, Cambodia and Uruguay
Trust me. I do not have time to create bots on PB
I'm...on a train. I have a bottle of diet Coke and a Kind caramel almond and sea salt bar.
😎
I have now eaten the Kind bar. This travel writing lark is easy. "Having consumed the bar, I am further consumed with hunger, the hunger impelled by a long journey. But the ache is accompanied by sadness, the recall of times when the Mars bar before it was still a prospect instead of a memory..."
For my usual sort of holiday:
I put my foot on the ground. It is firm and unyielding, like grass. The grass that is, not my foot. My foot is far from unyielding. It yields all the time, step after step, stride after stride, mile after mile. The next step is different. Soft and squelchy. even through my boot, it feels odd, as though I have just stepped in a dead deer.
I look down. I have just stepped onto a dead deer, a pelted carpet of bones.
Well martial law didn't last long in South Korea.....
It's still only 5 o clock in the morning still plenty of time today. It was a bit of a concern mind. Trump wins the Presidency and the world kicks off. We are already talking about $100m richer Nigel Farage as PM. God help us!
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.
Export to whom?
I can see bits at the margins - 10, 15% of consumption.
I can't see 1200-1300 GWh being in demand per annum.
We currently import huge amounts of gas and oil from questionable countries.
Why would we (and Germany etc) not import green electricity from close allies if falling solar panel prices make cheap energy from it abundant and cheaper than fossil fuels? Especially as more of our energy usage comes from electricity rather than oil over time.
Land is more scarce in the UK for large solar panel farms, and clearly we have less sun.
However, we get half of all the tidal energy that hits Europe....
Betfair Next GE Most Seats market seems quite extraordinary:
Con 2.52 Lab 2.88 Ref 4.1 LD 85
So Con after their worst result in history are favourites.
And Ref with just 5 seats are pretty close to the big two.
If I was a Tory punter I would be looking at the transformation in the Tory media of fash-friendly Faragistas (allotaalliteration!) becoming the cuddly centre right next government.
Assertion: Shecorns88 is a @Leon bot. He's talked about such a thing for a while, but I'm pretty sure he's done it.
Heathener has been mooted. It was not denied. But then there were those who claimed Heathener was Leon.
It's the absolute certainty which is unnerving. Like a lefty HYFUD but with less self-reflection.
Like most bots it never denies.
I’m deeply flattered that you believe I have the multitasking skills to lead my busy life AND create and nurture entire new sock puppet characters on PB
Consider, I am in Santa Marta, Colombia, on the Caribbean coast, I only arrived yesterday (so: major jet lag). Tomorrow I go onwards up the River Maddalena, one of the great rivers of the world
I have just written a piece for the Gazette this morning. I am also mapping out TWO major year-long flint projects, using various assistants, and also reading related books (like W G Sebald). I am also running the general chores of the self employed (taxes, etc), keeping up with friends and family daily and also exploring Colombia for my Gazette Travel piece (and researching the local history). And finally I am arranging trips for earlier next year, including Thailand, Cambodia and Uruguay
Trust me. I do not have time to create bots on PB
I'm...on a train. I have a bottle of diet Coke and a Kind caramel almond and sea salt bar.
😎
I have now eaten the Kind bar. This travel writing lark is easy. "Having consumed the bar, I am further consumed with hunger, the hunger impelled by a long journey. But the ache is accompanied by sadness, the recall of times when the Mars bar before it was still a prospect instead of a memory..."
I need a poo.
"...the dread moment arrives: can I face the pan or withhold the pain? Thoughts swirl through my head: the sticky seat, the peeling laminate, the tissue of tissues teased out thru the too small slot, the ever-wet floor. I am not flushed by the flush, and will hold it in. Shallow breaths..."
Assertion: Shecorns88 is a @Leon bot. He's talked about such a thing for a while, but I'm pretty sure he's done it.
Heathener has been mooted. It was not denied. But then there were those who claimed Heathener was Leon.
It's the absolute certainty which is unnerving. Like a lefty HYFUD but with less self-reflection.
Like most bots it never denies.
I’m deeply flattered that you believe I have the multitasking skills to lead my busy life AND create and nurture entire new sock puppet characters on PB
Consider, I am in Santa Marta, Colombia, on the Caribbean coast, I only arrived yesterday (so: major jet lag). Tomorrow I go onwards up the River Maddalena, one of the great rivers of the world
I have just written a piece for the Gazette this morning. I am also mapping out TWO major year-long flint projects, using various assistants, and also reading related books (like W G Sebald). I am also running the general chores of the self employed (taxes, etc), keeping up with friends and family daily and also exploring Colombia for my Gazette Travel piece (and researching the local history). And finally I am arranging trips for earlier next year, including Thailand, Cambodia and Uruguay
Trust me. I do not have time to create bots on PB
I'm...on a train. I have a bottle of diet Coke and a Kind caramel almond and sea salt bar.
😎
I have now eaten the Kind bar. This travel writing lark is easy. "Having consumed the bar, I am further consumed with hunger, the hunger impelled by a long journey. But the ache is accompanied by sadness, the recall of times when the Mars bar before it was still a prospect instead of a memory..."
I need a poo.
"...the dread moment arrives: can I face the pan or withhold the pain? Thoughts swirl through my head: the sticky seat, the peeling laminate, the tissue of tissues teased out thru the too small slot, the ever-wet floor. I am not flushed by the flush, and will hold it in. Shallow breaths..."
Assertion: Shecorns88 is a @Leon bot. He's talked about such a thing for a while, but I'm pretty sure he's done it.
Heathener has been mooted. It was not denied. But then there were those who claimed Heathener was Leon.
It's the absolute certainty which is unnerving. Like a lefty HYFUD but with less self-reflection.
Like most bots it never denies.
I am far more predisposed to Leon's left of centre iterations. They are remarkably articulate and generally polite. It's a bit of a hat tip to sixties and seventies comedy shows with contrasting characters. You know, Benny Hill, Russ Abbott, Dick Emery. "Ooh you are awful but I like you".
The old phone Sat Nav, on the life support of a loosely connected wire, says the dual carriageway route I now intended to use is a couple of minutes slower than some magical mystery tour and I'm already some way off my anticipated route. Let's stay with the A46 aaand, damn, missed it.
The family look vaguely quizzical that we appear to be in some generic suburb of Coventry, but as the road isn't moving too badly there aren't recriminations. As I pull up to the lights a happy cry of joy emanates from the back. Shit, it's Binley Mega Chippy! And the internet meme is explained.
All the places we've been and seen and here is the highlight. A chippy on the drive home. Back towards the A46 and I have learnt a new jingle, repeatedly. At least they've stopped annoying each other.
I asked earlier but didn't get a reply.. I'll try again
Does anyone know if the stated (£700m?) cost of the Rwanda scheme was money paid to Rwanda, or did it include the cost of fighting the legal challenges against the scheme?
I think that this is an important distinction in assessing the cost of the scheme
I asked earlier but didn't get a reply.. I'll try again
Does anyone know if the stated (£700m?) cost of the Rwanda scheme was money paid to Rwanda, or did it include the cost of fighting the legal challenges against the scheme?
I think that this is an important distinction in assessing the cost of the scheme
Not really. Even that nice Mr Tice was explaining on LBC that Rwanda was a crackpot scheme. Public money spent on expensive lawyers defending a ludicrous policy remains a waste of money.
The old phone Sat Nav, on the life support of a loosely connected wire, says the dual carriageway route I now intended to use is a couple of minutes slower than some magical mystery tour and I'm already some way off my anticipated route. Let's stay with the A46 aaand, damn, missed it.
The family look vaguely quizzical that we appear to be in some generic suburb of Coventry, but as the road isn't moving too badly there aren't recriminations. As I pull up to the lights a happy cry of joy emanates from the back. Shit, it's Binley Mega Chippy! And the internet meme is explained.
All the places we've been and seen and here is the highlight. A chippy on the drive home. Back towards the A46 and I have learnt a new jingle, repeatedly. At least they've stopped annoying each other.
By the way, I did once actually step in a deer. I was walking down the A9 in the northeast of Scotland, and stepped onto the verge to allow a lorry past. My foot landed on something soft and squidgy. It looked like an old, dishevelled brown carpet. Then I noticed it was also crunchy under my foot. For a horrific moment I thought it might be a body in a carpet, but then I noticed its head. All the fleshy insides had gone, making it a pancake of bones.
I asked earlier but didn't get a reply.. I'll try again
Does anyone know if the stated (£700m?) cost of the Rwanda scheme was money paid to Rwanda, or did it include the cost of fighting the legal challenges against the scheme?
I think that this is an important distinction in assessing the cost of the scheme
£290 million to Rwanda, £50 million on booking flights, £95 million on detention facilities, £280 million on "others" (which seems like a lot of "others").
Not all of that £280 million will be the cost of legal challenges- it includes the IT systems and "normal" legal costs. But presumably that is where the costs of the challenges would be.
By the way, I did once actually step in a deer. I was walking down the A9 in the northeast of Scotland, and stepped onto the verge to allow a lorry past. My foot landed on something soft and squidgy. It looked like an old, dishevelled brown carpet. Then I noticed it was also crunchy under my foot. For a horrific moment I thought it might be a body in a carpet, but then I noticed its head. All the fleshy insides had gone, making it a pancake of bones.
Oddly, there was no smell.
I shot a muntjac deer by accident once from about twenty feet with a 12 gauge shotgun - very messy. Was lamping (legally) and saw the reflection of the eyes and shot instantly.
Mind you I also shot a Walkers Crisps packet once as the inner foil reflected and I fired immediately on sight - less messy.
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.
Export to whom?
I can see bits at the margins - 10, 15% of consumption.
I can't see 1200-1300 GWh being in demand per annum.
I hope there is. One of the points of zero marginal cost electricity is the potential for huge economic growth. There's the possibility of completely new industries.
The author of the article that sparked this discussion seems to fundementally disagree with you on that.
That's fine. But FWIW I think it's wrong.
There may be big prizes for those who show I'm right.
So Starmer's deportations aren't what any traditional use of the English language would describe as deportations?
We're paying a tiny, tiny percentage of illegal immigrants to go home to safe countries
And Starmer claims that he's deported loads of illegals
He sent a plane loads of Vietnamese back to Saigon over the summer. One moment you're moaning that the current government has failed in its immigration policy the next you are changing the terms of reference to suit your agenda.
You have plenty of genuine targets to aim at over Starmer's 5 months of disappointment but immigration after years of your team's subject failure is a bit rich.
I asked earlier but didn't get a reply.. I'll try again
Does anyone know if the stated (£700m?) cost of the Rwanda scheme was money paid to Rwanda, or did it include the cost of fighting the legal challenges against the scheme?
I think that this is an important distinction in assessing the cost of the scheme
£290 million to Rwanda, £50 million on booking flights, £95 million on detention facilities, £280 million on "others" (which seems like a lot of "others").
Not all of that £280 million will be the cost of legal challenges- it includes the IT systems and "normal" legal costs. But presumably that is where the costs of the challenges would be.
How on earth was £50m spent on flights in a way that was entirely irretrievable?
We surely didn't buy hundreds of thousands of one way tickets to Rwanda up front?
Well martial law didn't last long in South Korea.....
Given it was declared around 11.30pm and rescinded by 5am, most South Koreans probably slept through the whole thing!
Seems like a right bonkers decision, given the reaction. It makes one suspect some grand strategy around it as can he really have thought it would work?
I asked earlier but didn't get a reply.. I'll try again
Does anyone know if the stated (£700m?) cost of the Rwanda scheme was money paid to Rwanda, or did it include the cost of fighting the legal challenges against the scheme?
I think that this is an important distinction in assessing the cost of the scheme
£290 million to Rwanda, £50 million on booking flights, £95 million on detention facilities, £280 million on "others" (which seems like a lot of "others").
Not all of that £280 million will be the cost of legal challenges- it includes the IT systems and "normal" legal costs. But presumably that is where the costs of the challenges would be.
How on earth was £50m spent on flights in a way that was entirely irretrievable?
We surely didn't buy hundreds of thousands of one way tickets to Rwanda up front?
Never underestimate the ability of goverment to spend money.
I asked earlier but didn't get a reply.. I'll try again
Does anyone know if the stated (£700m?) cost of the Rwanda scheme was money paid to Rwanda, or did it include the cost of fighting the legal challenges against the scheme?
I think that this is an important distinction in assessing the cost of the scheme
£290 million to Rwanda, £50 million on booking flights, £95 million on detention facilities, £280 million on "others" (which seems like a lot of "others").
Not all of that £280 million will be the cost of legal challenges- it includes the IT systems and "normal" legal costs. But presumably that is where the costs of the challenges would be.
How did flights cost £50m? They only flew 4 volunteers?
Looks like every single govt contractor who could has been suckling greedily at the Rwanda scheme, but less than 1% of the total cost attributed to legal challenges to the total fuck-up.
Just think how much could have been saved if the legal challenges had been successful! Why wasn't the taxpayers' alliance in there fighting on our behalf to stop the incompetents?
I asked earlier but didn't get a reply.. I'll try again
Does anyone know if the stated (£700m?) cost of the Rwanda scheme was money paid to Rwanda, or did it include the cost of fighting the legal challenges against the scheme?
I think that this is an important distinction in assessing the cost of the scheme
£290 million to Rwanda, £50 million on booking flights, £95 million on detention facilities, £280 million on "others" (which seems like a lot of "others").
Not all of that £280 million will be the cost of legal challenges- it includes the IT systems and "normal" legal costs. But presumably that is where the costs of the challenges would be.
How on earth was £50m spent on flights in a way that was entirely irretrievable?
We surely didn't buy hundreds of thousands of one way tickets to Rwanda up front?
Flights, escorting, airfield and impacted police force This relates to the direct costs associated with the MEDP with Rwanda, including:
the costs to secure flights the costs of escorts the costs to prepare the airfield for the MEDP flights police force costs to secure the airfield
I asked earlier but didn't get a reply.. I'll try again
Does anyone know if the stated (£700m?) cost of the Rwanda scheme was money paid to Rwanda, or did it include the cost of fighting the legal challenges against the scheme?
I think that this is an important distinction in assessing the cost of the scheme
£290 million to Rwanda, £50 million on booking flights, £95 million on detention facilities, £280 million on "others" (which seems like a lot of "others").
Not all of that £280 million will be the cost of legal challenges- it includes the IT systems and "normal" legal costs. But presumably that is where the costs of the challenges would be.
How on earth was £50m spent on flights in a way that was entirely irretrievable?
We surely didn't buy hundreds of thousands of one way tickets to Rwanda up front?
You would have to ask the 2019-22 government (PM Johnson, CofE Sunak) how much they blew on the failed flight in June 2022. And the 2022-24 (PM Sunak, CofE Hunt) why they didn't nix the scheme as an absurd waste of money.
So Starmer's deportations aren't what any traditional use of the English language would describe as deportations?
We're paying a tiny, tiny percentage of illegal immigrants to go home to safe countries
And Starmer claims that he's deported loads of illegals
He sent a plane loads of Vietnamese back to Saigon over the summer. One moment you're moaning that the current government has failed in its immigration policy the next you are changing the terms of reference to suit your agenda.
You have plenty of genuine targets to aim at over Starmer's 5 months of disappointment but immigration after years of your team's subject failure is a bit rich.
Where are the human rights lawyers challenging every deportation that happened under the previous government?
Why didn't the last government go after these apparently easy targets that have been found so quickly for human rights lawyer Sir Keir?
Is Sir Keir such a fucking amazing human rights lawyer that he just knows, and wins?
I asked earlier but didn't get a reply.. I'll try again
Does anyone know if the stated (£700m?) cost of the Rwanda scheme was money paid to Rwanda, or did it include the cost of fighting the legal challenges against the scheme?
I think that this is an important distinction in assessing the cost of the scheme
£290 million to Rwanda, £50 million on booking flights, £95 million on detention facilities, £280 million on "others" (which seems like a lot of "others").
Not all of that £280 million will be the cost of legal challenges- it includes the IT systems and "normal" legal costs. But presumably that is where the costs of the challenges would be.
How on earth was £50m spent on flights in a way that was entirely irretrievable?
We surely didn't buy hundreds of thousands of one way tickets to Rwanda up front?
Suella flew there a few times. A chartered Airbus with just one passenger doesn't come cheap
As of this moment, what seem to be the alternatives the a Labour government? The Conservatives? Who’ve made a total mess of things from 2015 onwards, even allowing for Covid, and whose leadership will probably become, when all the facts are revealed, a byword for corruption? Or Reform, many of whose plans have been described here, rightly, as gibberish? Or the LibDems, who, I personally regret to say, seem, at present anyway, unable to put forward coherent alternatives. So, so far, I think we’ve got to hope that Sir Keir and his team grow into their roles.
Even if Labour does remain in office it will be scraping home in a hung parliament propped up by the LDs most likely, the price of which will be an end to the tractor tax and restored WFPs. The cost of living crisis is hitting Labour as much as other incumbent governments across the world but Starmer and Reeves have only exacerbated the impact by their decision making
Even if Labour does remain in office it will be scraping home in a hung parliament propped up by the LDs most likely, the price of which will be an end to the tractor tax and restored WFPs. The cost of living crisis is hitting Labour as much as other incumbent governments across the world but Starmer and Reeves have only exacerbated the impact by their decision making
It would be hysterical if they went into Coalition and removed tuition fees... 😃
I asked earlier but didn't get a reply.. I'll try again
Does anyone know if the stated (£700m?) cost of the Rwanda scheme was money paid to Rwanda, or did it include the cost of fighting the legal challenges against the scheme?
I think that this is an important distinction in assessing the cost of the scheme
£290 million to Rwanda, £50 million on booking flights, £95 million on detention facilities, £280 million on "others" (which seems like a lot of "others").
Not all of that £280 million will be the cost of legal challenges- it includes the IT systems and "normal" legal costs. But presumably that is where the costs of the challenges would be.
How on earth was £50m spent on flights in a way that was entirely irretrievable?
We surely didn't buy hundreds of thousands of one way tickets to Rwanda up front?
You would have to ask the 2019-22 government (PM Johnson, CofE Sunak) how much they blew on the failed flight in June 2022. And the 2022-24 (PM Sunak, CofE Hunt) why they didn't nix the scheme as an absurd waste of money.
The breakdown doesn't seem to include any flight or legal costs from 2022 which is strange.
Only shocking thing is that he didn't make the jump a decade ago.
He used to have an office at CCHQ when he ran the Conservative Christian Fellowship, he will certainly try and shift Reform in a more socially conservative direction. He joins Ann Widdecombe as the main representative of the Christian right in Reform
So Starmer's deportations aren't what any traditional use of the English language would describe as deportations?
We're paying a tiny, tiny percentage of illegal immigrants to go home to safe countries
And Starmer claims that he's deported loads of illegals
This isn't difficult, If you apply for asylum and your country is deemed safe then your asylum application fails and you are returned to your safe country. If you apply for asylum and you are deemed to be at risk in your home country then your asylum application is successful. It would be illegal to return an asylum applicant to an unsafe country
As of this moment, what seem to be the alternatives the a Labour government? The Conservatives? Who’ve made a total mess of things from 2015 onwards, even allowing for Covid, and whose leadership will probably become, when all the facts are revealed, a byword for corruption? Or Reform, many of whose plans have been described here, rightly, as gibberish? Or the LibDems, who, I personally regret to say, seem, at present anyway, unable to put forward coherent alternatives. So, so far, I think we’ve got to hope that Sir Keir and his team grow into their roles.
There are no alternatives til 2028 by which time I suspect the options will look quite different anyway.
So Starmer's deportations aren't what any traditional use of the English language would describe as deportations?
We're paying a tiny, tiny percentage of illegal immigrants to go home to safe countries
And Starmer claims that he's deported loads of illegals
He sent a plane loads of Vietnamese back to Saigon over the summer. One moment you're moaning that the current government has failed in its immigration policy the next you are changing the terms of reference to suit your agenda.
You have plenty of genuine targets to aim at over Starmer's 5 months of disappointment but immigration after years of your team's subject failure is a bit rich.
Where are the human rights lawyers challenging every deportation that happened under the previous government?
Why didn't the last government go after these apparently easy targets that have been found so quickly for human rights lawyer Sir Keir?
Is Sir Keir such a fucking amazing human rights lawyer that he just knows, and wins?
You are wilfully missing the point. Rwanda broke a number of international conventions. Starmer bunging illegals some bunce and sending them home I doubt breaks any. I don't suppose he even has to be a particularly accomplished lawyer to avoid that trap
So Starmer's deportations aren't what any traditional use of the English language would describe as deportations?
We're paying a tiny, tiny percentage of illegal immigrants to go home to safe countries
And Starmer claims that he's deported loads of illegals
This isn't difficult, If you apply for asylum and your country is deemed safe then your asylum application fails and you are returned to your safe country. If you apply for asylum and you are deemed to be at risk in your home country then your asylum application is successful. It would be illegal to return an asylum applicant to an unsafe country
That Labour is now processing asylum applicants and returning people just shows how simple it could have been for the Conservatives if they hadn't chosen not to process asylum applicants and instead wasted money on housing them in socially deprived areas where the EDL etc could wind up the locals.
So Starmer's deportations aren't what any traditional use of the English language would describe as deportations?
We're paying a tiny, tiny percentage of illegal immigrants to go home to safe countries
And Starmer claims that he's deported loads of illegals
He sent a plane loads of Vietnamese back to Saigon over the summer. One moment you're moaning that the current government has failed in its immigration policy the next you are changing the terms of reference to suit your agenda.
You have plenty of genuine targets to aim at over Starmer's 5 months of disappointment but immigration after years of your team's subject failure is a bit rich.
Where are the human rights lawyers challenging every deportation that happened under the previous government?
Why didn't the last government go after these apparently easy targets that have been found so quickly for human rights lawyer Sir Keir?
Is Sir Keir such a fucking amazing human rights lawyer that he just knows, and wins?
Ministers are considering renationalising British Steel in a last-ditch attempt to save thousands of jobs, amid a standoff between the government and the company’s Chinese owners over a £1bn investment.
Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, is locked in talks with British Steel and its owner, Jingye, to agree how much each party should put into a rescue plan for its main Scunthorpe site.
But with the discussions showing little sign of progress, sources say Reynolds is open to taking it over entirely, in a move that would reverse Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation of the British steel industry in 1988.
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.
What Kemi doesn't seem to understand is that she can placate the powerful Osbornite vested interests within the Tory Party as much as she likes, but they're actually only interested in the party because of its potential to gain power anyway. The minute she starts to get seriously behind Reform in the polls, they will drop her like a hot brick and start cosying up to Reform and Farage, the very element they are moulding the Tory Party to reject. She needs to drop them before they do it to her, basically steal Jenrick and Truss's policy agenda but wrap it in some Kemi language, unite the PCP behind a right wing agenda and remove the Lib Dems from CCHQ. She will need to do all of that just to tread water.
So Starmer's deportations aren't what any traditional use of the English language would describe as deportations?
We're paying a tiny, tiny percentage of illegal immigrants to go home to safe countries
And Starmer claims that he's deported loads of illegals
He sent a plane loads of Vietnamese back to Saigon over the summer. One moment you're moaning that the current government has failed in its immigration policy the next you are changing the terms of reference to suit your agenda.
You have plenty of genuine targets to aim at over Starmer's 5 months of disappointment but immigration after years of your team's subject failure is a bit rich.
Where are the human rights lawyers challenging every deportation that happened under the previous government?
Why didn't the last government go after these apparently easy targets that have been found so quickly for human rights lawyer Sir Keir?
Is Sir Keir such a fucking amazing human rights lawyer that he just knows, and wins?
I don't know about questions 1 and 3. But the answer to question 2 is simple- at some point, the Conservative Party became a club for incompetent nitwits. (As in 'they are incompetent and they are nitwits'. Not 'they are incompetent at being nitwits', which would presumably mean they were quite clever.)
The immigtation system, where the UK now spends a fortune warehousing people in hotels because they essentially gave up on trying to work out who should be welcomed in and who should be sent packing, is only the most tragicomic example of the state we're still in.
And until there's some recognition of, and contrition for, that essential uselessness, the Conservatives don't deserve a way back. And the mood of the nation will remain some variation on 'we're not fans of Starmer, but he'll still have to do'.
So Starmer's deportations aren't what any traditional use of the English language would describe as deportations?
We're paying a tiny, tiny percentage of illegal immigrants to go home to safe countries
And Starmer claims that he's deported loads of illegals
He sent a plane loads of Vietnamese back to Saigon over the summer. One moment you're moaning that the current government has failed in its immigration policy the next you are changing the terms of reference to suit your agenda.
You have plenty of genuine targets to aim at over Starmer's 5 months of disappointment but immigration after years of your team's subject failure is a bit rich.
Where are the human rights lawyers challenging every deportation that happened under the previous government?
Why didn't the last government go after these apparently easy targets that have been found so quickly for human rights lawyer Sir Keir?
Is Sir Keir such a fucking amazing human rights lawyer that he just knows, and wins?
It is not that SKS is amazing. It is that the Conservatives were a mix of incompetents and two faced liars quite happy to fail in tackling asylum in order to generate favourable Daily Mail headlines. It really is beyond time to start asking why voters concerned about immigration don't understand this. Some have and have switched to Reform. More will as time goes by.
Even if Labour does remain in office it will be scraping home in a hung parliament propped up by the LDs most likely, the price of which will be an end to the tractor tax and restored WFPs. The cost of living crisis is hitting Labour as much as other incumbent governments across the world but Starmer and Reeves have only exacerbated the impact by their decision making
At the moment Labour look like they will get absolutely tonked, but unless Elon can muster a coup they have four and a half years to pull it back. Meanwhile the Conservatives are in chaos and the Tory media are caressing Nigel around the trouser area.
So Starmer's deportations aren't what any traditional use of the English language would describe as deportations?
We're paying a tiny, tiny percentage of illegal immigrants to go home to safe countries
And Starmer claims that he's deported loads of illegals
This isn't difficult, If you apply for asylum and your country is deemed safe then your asylum application fails and you are returned to your safe country. If you apply for asylum and you are deemed to be at risk in your home country then your asylum application is successful. It would be illegal to return an asylum applicant to an unsafe country
That Labour is now processing asylum applicants and returning people just shows how simple it could have been for the Conservatives if they hadn't chosen not to process asylum applicants and instead wasted money on housing them in socially deprived areas where the EDL etc could wind up the locals.
In this case they weren’t asylum seekers, rather those that have overstayed their visa.
So Starmer's deportations aren't what any traditional use of the English language would describe as deportations?
We're paying a tiny, tiny percentage of illegal immigrants to go home to safe countries
And Starmer claims that he's deported loads of illegals
He sent a plane loads of Vietnamese back to Saigon over the summer. One moment you're moaning that the current government has failed in its immigration policy the next you are changing the terms of reference to suit your agenda.
You have plenty of genuine targets to aim at over Starmer's 5 months of disappointment but immigration after years of your team's subject failure is a bit rich.
Where are the human rights lawyers challenging every deportation that happened under the previous government?
Why didn't the last government go after these apparently easy targets that have been found so quickly for human rights lawyer Sir Keir?
Is Sir Keir such a fucking amazing human rights lawyer that he just knows, and wins?
I can't work out if you're criticising Starmer or applauding him.
I asked earlier but didn't get a reply.. I'll try again
Does anyone know if the stated (£700m?) cost of the Rwanda scheme was money paid to Rwanda, or did it include the cost of fighting the legal challenges against the scheme?
I think that this is an important distinction in assessing the cost of the scheme
There is £280m of "other fixed costs" which is defined as (with my bold):
These include:
* the costs incurred to design and develop the digital, IT and data systems required to operationalise the MEDP and IMA * legal costs and the cost of staff working directly on both of these policies
So Starmer's deportations aren't what any traditional use of the English language would describe as deportations?
We're paying a tiny, tiny percentage of illegal immigrants to go home to safe countries
And Starmer claims that he's deported loads of illegals
He sent a plane loads of Vietnamese back to Saigon over the summer. One moment you're moaning that the current government has failed in its immigration policy the next you are changing the terms of reference to suit your agenda.
You have plenty of genuine targets to aim at over Starmer's 5 months of disappointment but immigration after years of your team's subject failure is a bit rich.
Where are the human rights lawyers challenging every deportation that happened under the previous government?
Why didn't the last government go after these apparently easy targets that have been found so quickly for human rights lawyer Sir Keir?
Is Sir Keir such a fucking amazing human rights lawyer that he just knows, and wins?
I can't work out if you're criticising Starmer or applauding him.
Criticising Starmer for not dealing with illegal immigrants and then having the temerity to deport illegal immigrants if I have it right.
Even if Labour does remain in office it will be scraping home in a hung parliament propped up by the LDs most likely, the price of which will be an end to the tractor tax and restored WFPs. The cost of living crisis is hitting Labour as much as other incumbent governments across the world but Starmer and Reeves have only exacerbated the impact by their decision making
The Lib Dems would be mad to focus on those policies being the price of support. They would focus elsewhere.
Even if Labour does remain in office it will be scraping home in a hung parliament propped up by the LDs most likely, the price of which will be an end to the tractor tax and restored WFPs. The cost of living crisis is hitting Labour as much as other incumbent governments across the world but Starmer and Reeves have only exacerbated the impact by their decision making
The Lib Dems would be mad to focus on those policies being the price of support. They would focus elsewhere.
People are so used to govts collapsing there seems to be a collective denial that the next election and change of govt is in 2028.
So Starmer's deportations aren't what any traditional use of the English language would describe as deportations?
We're paying a tiny, tiny percentage of illegal immigrants to go home to safe countries
And Starmer claims that he's deported loads of illegals
He sent a plane loads of Vietnamese back to Saigon over the summer. One moment you're moaning that the current government has failed in its immigration policy the next you are changing the terms of reference to suit your agenda.
You have plenty of genuine targets to aim at over Starmer's 5 months of disappointment but immigration after years of your team's subject failure is a bit rich.
Where are the human rights lawyers challenging every deportation that happened under the previous government?
Why didn't the last government go after these apparently easy targets that have been found so quickly for human rights lawyer Sir Keir?
Is Sir Keir such a fucking amazing human rights lawyer that he just knows, and wins?
I can't work out if you're criticising Starmer or applauding him.
Criticising Starmer for not dealing with illegal immigrants and then having the temerity to deport illegal immigrants if I have it right.
Experienced lawyer and bureaucrat performs well in legal and bureaucratic process.
Ministers are considering renationalising British Steel in a last-ditch attempt to save thousands of jobs, amid a standoff between the government and the company’s Chinese owners over a £1bn investment.
Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, is locked in talks with British Steel and its owner, Jingye, to agree how much each party should put into a rescue plan for its main Scunthorpe site.
But with the discussions showing little sign of progress, sources say Reynolds is open to taking it over entirely, in a move that would reverse Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation of the British steel industry in 1988.
Go on SKS, do it. Enough of this "privatise the profits, socialise the losses" gubbins. If it's politically impossible to let it fail, then nationalise it. Next stop: Thames Water.
Only shocking thing is that he didn't make the jump a decade ago.
He used to have an office at CCHQ when he ran the Conservative Christian Fellowship, he will certainly try and shift Reform in a more socially conservative direction. He joins Ann Widdecombe as the main representative of the Christian right in Reform
Proving the old adage.
Tim Montgomerie has abandoned the Tories for Reform and as a result the quality of both parties has gone up.
By the way, I did once actually step in a deer. I was walking down the A9 in the northeast of Scotland, and stepped onto the verge to allow a lorry past. My foot landed on something soft and squidgy. It looked like an old, dishevelled brown carpet. Then I noticed it was also crunchy under my foot. For a horrific moment I thought it might be a body in a carpet, but then I noticed its head. All the fleshy insides had gone, making it a pancake of bones.
I asked earlier but didn't get a reply.. I'll try again
Does anyone know if the stated (£700m?) cost of the Rwanda scheme was money paid to Rwanda, or did it include the cost of fighting the legal challenges against the scheme?
I think that this is an important distinction in assessing the cost of the scheme
£290 million to Rwanda, £50 million on booking flights, £95 million on detention facilities, £280 million on "others" (which seems like a lot of "others").
Not all of that £280 million will be the cost of legal challenges- it includes the IT systems and "normal" legal costs. But presumably that is where the costs of the challenges would be.
How on earth was £50m spent on flights in a way that was entirely irretrievable?
We surely didn't buy hundreds of thousands of one way tickets to Rwanda up front?
Flights, escorting, airfield and impacted police force This relates to the direct costs associated with the MEDP with Rwanda, including:
the costs to secure flights the costs of escorts the costs to prepare the airfield for the MEDP flights police force costs to secure the airfield
Plus the cost of repainting the aircraft in Boris Airways livery.
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.
You mean solar?
And yes, they should.
Which implies you don't think domestic solar can be sufficient, otherwise the transport costs wouldn't be worth it.
Not necessarily.
In the long term, solar panels will be so cheap that we'll cover the UK in them.
But in the medium term, panels in North Africa and the Iberian peninsular make perfect sense. And they'll keep being useful even after the UK is covered in panels, because daylight hours are so much longer in winter there.
Garry Kasparov @Kasparov63 Biden should have stepped down and let Harris pardon Hunter. This would also 1) deliver the first black woman president and 2) ruin all of Trump's made-in-China "45th-47th President" merchandise!
Garry Kasparov @Kasparov63 Biden should have stepped down and let Harris pardon Hunter. This would also 1) deliver the first black woman president and 2) ruin all of Trump's made-in-China "45th-47th President" merchandise!
Some legacy that would be. Lost comprehensively at the election, and only made president so they could do the bidding of their predecessor to pardon their son.
Comments
Ouch! The ultimate insult I think..😏 Rock on Tommy! 😏
I can see bits at the margins - 10, 15% of consumption.
I can't see 1200-1300 GWh being in demand per annum.
They've already repudiated Biden for the pardon.
But I can see it got you excited.
One of the two mental states of Tories (the other being panic).
Labour are going to be yesterday’s losers in four years time. Exactly as the Conservatives are now.
What is it with these people? I know they have to believe in their narrative to be persistent but jeeze.
30% of your program, plus half of the rest compromised, is better than watching everything you worked for destroyed by malign forces.
They need to wake up.
Why would we (and Germany etc) not import green electricity from close allies if falling solar panel prices make cheap energy from it abundant and cheaper than fossil fuels? Especially as more of our energy usage comes from electricity rather than oil over time.
Land is more scarce in the UK for large solar panel farms, and clearly we have less sun.
😎
It ought at the very least to raise the bar on coup attempts.
Jasleen Kaur - an artist whose latest exhibition uses a vintage Ford Escort, worship bells and Irn-Bru to celebrate the Scottish Sikh community - has won this year's Turner Prize.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3e3982dz8ko
Are we sure this isn't the new Jag?
One of the points of zero marginal cost electricity is the potential for huge economic growth. There's the possibility of completely new industries.
Con 2.52
Lab 2.88
Ref 4.1
LD 85
So Con after their worst result in history are favourites.
And Ref with just 5 seats are pretty close to the big two.
Good first effort though.
I put my foot on the ground. It is firm and unyielding, like grass. The grass that is, not my foot. My foot is far from unyielding. It yields all the time, step after step, stride after stride, mile after mile. The next step is different. Soft and squelchy. even through my boot, it feels odd, as though I have just stepped in a dead deer.
I look down. I have just stepped onto a dead deer, a pelted carpet of bones.
"...the dread moment arrives: can I face the pan or withhold the pain? Thoughts swirl through my head: the sticky seat, the peeling laminate, the tissue of tissues teased out thru the too small slot, the ever-wet floor. I am not flushed by the flush, and will hold it in. Shallow breaths..."
The family look vaguely quizzical that we appear to be in some generic suburb of Coventry, but as the road isn't moving too badly there aren't recriminations. As I pull up to the lights a happy cry of joy emanates from the back. Shit, it's Binley Mega Chippy! And the internet meme is explained.
All the places we've been and seen and here is the highlight. A chippy on the drive home. Back towards the A46 and I have learnt a new jingle, repeatedly. At least they've stopped annoying each other.
The cat is on me.
How will she forgive me.
If I move her off?
Oh you mean South Korea.
Does anyone know if the stated (£700m?) cost of the Rwanda scheme was money paid to Rwanda, or did it include the cost of fighting the legal challenges against the scheme?
I think that this is an important distinction in assessing the cost of the scheme
Rwanda was an Alexander Johnson stunt.
Oddly, there was no smell.
We're paying a tiny, tiny percentage of illegal immigrants to go home to safe countries
And Starmer claims that he's deported loads of illegals
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/medp-with-rwanda-and-the-illegal-migration-act-associated-costs/breakdown-of-home-office-costs-associated-with-the-medp-with-rwanda-and-the-illegal-migration-act-2023
£290 million to Rwanda, £50 million on booking flights, £95 million on detention facilities, £280 million on "others" (which seems like a lot of "others").
Not all of that £280 million will be the cost of legal challenges- it includes the IT systems and "normal" legal costs. But presumably that is where the costs of the challenges would be.
Mind you I also shot a Walkers Crisps packet once as the inner foil reflected and I fired immediately on sight - less messy.
But FWIW I think it's wrong.
There may be big prizes for those who show I'm right.
You have plenty of genuine targets to aim at over Starmer's 5 months of disappointment but immigration after years of your team's subject failure is a bit rich.
We surely didn't buy hundreds of thousands of one way tickets to Rwanda up front?
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legal-fees-of-defending-rwanda-scheme-soar-past-2m/5118927.article
How did flights cost £50m? They only flew 4 volunteers?
Looks like every single govt contractor who could has been suckling greedily at the Rwanda scheme, but less than 1% of the total cost attributed to legal challenges to the total fuck-up.
Just think how much could have been saved if the legal challenges had been successful!
Why wasn't the taxpayers' alliance in there fighting on our behalf to stop the incompetents?
This relates to the direct costs associated with the MEDP with Rwanda, including:
the costs to secure flights
the costs of escorts
the costs to prepare the airfield for the MEDP flights
police force costs to secure the airfield
Why didn't the last government go after these apparently easy targets that have been found so quickly for human rights lawyer Sir Keir?
Is Sir Keir such a fucking amazing human rights lawyer that he just knows, and wins?
Or Reform, many of whose plans have been described here, rightly, as gibberish?
Or the LibDems, who, I personally regret to say, seem, at present anyway, unable to put forward coherent alternatives.
So, so far, I think we’ve got to hope that Sir Keir and his team grow into their roles.
If you apply for asylum and your country is deemed safe then your asylum application fails and you are returned to your safe country.
If you apply for asylum and you are deemed to be at risk in your home country then your asylum application is successful.
It would be illegal to return an asylum applicant to an unsafe country
That Labour is now processing asylum applicants and returning people just shows how simple it could have been for the Conservatives if they hadn't chosen not to process asylum applicants and instead wasted money on housing them in socially deprived areas where the EDL etc could wind up the locals.
Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, is locked in talks with British Steel and its owner, Jingye, to agree how much each party should put into a rescue plan for its main Scunthorpe site.
But with the discussions showing little sign of progress, sources say Reynolds is open to taking it over entirely, in a move that would reverse Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation of the British steel industry in 1988.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/dec/03/ministers-considering-renationalising-british-steel
Sam Freedman @samfr.bsky.social
·
41m
Got to admire the efficiency of the Koreans. All stages of a failed coup in an afternoon.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-son-vince-cable-liberal-democrat-general-election-campaign-twickenham-a7817491.html
The immigtation system, where the UK now spends a fortune warehousing people in hotels because they essentially gave up on trying to work out who should be welcomed in and who should be sent packing, is only the most tragicomic example of the state we're still in.
And until there's some recognition of, and contrition for, that essential uselessness, the Conservatives don't deserve a way back. And the mood of the nation will remain some variation on 'we're not fans of Starmer, but he'll still have to do'.
Would he?
deportation - the action of deporting a foreigner from a country.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/medp-with-rwanda-and-the-illegal-migration-act-associated-costs/breakdown-of-home-office-costs-associated-with-the-medp-with-rwanda-and-the-illegal-migration-act-2023
To Rwanda is a total of £290m.
There is £280m of "other fixed costs" which is defined as (with my bold):
* the costs incurred to design and develop the digital, IT and data systems required to operationalise the MEDP and IMA
* legal costs and the cost of staff working directly on both of these policies
Tim Montgomerie has abandoned the Tories for Reform and as a result the quality of both parties has gone up.
In the long term, solar panels will be so cheap that we'll cover the UK in them.
But in the medium term, panels in North Africa and the Iberian peninsular make perfect sense. And they'll keep being useful even after the UK is covered in panels, because daylight hours are so much longer in winter there.
@Kasparov63
Biden should have stepped down and let Harris pardon Hunter. This would also 1) deliver the first black woman president and 2) ruin all of Trump's made-in-China "45th-47th President" merchandise!
https://x.com/Kasparov63/status/1864047573280919593