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.
Even easier to deport then. At £3k to avoid the cost of the legal process, the £700m for Rwanda policy could have been spent on returning 200,000 overstayers.
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
Best part of 56 thousand PB posts suggests otherwise, and that’s only one incarnation.
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.
The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
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.
Even easier to deport then. At £3k to avoid the cost of the legal process, the £700m for Rwanda policy could have been spent on returning 200,000 overstayers.
That sums up the problem entirely. You shouldn’t have to pay to deport people who are in the country illegally. If someone has overstayed their visa, they shouldn’t be allowed to stay.
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
I think both those issues will be forgotten about in 4 years. There will be new stuff by then.
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.
Most of the Reform gains since the GE have been from Labour voters, especially working class redwall voters who voted for Boris in 2019 but then for Starmer in July, not the Tories
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.
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.
The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
Correct. They are virulently anti-cycle lane around me, which is astonishing if you think about it. Probably the most Lib Demmy policy you could imagine; Davey actually cycled into his manifesto launch.
They are mopping up what remains of the Conservatives after Farage has finished with his share.
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
I think both those issues will be forgotten about in 4 years. There will be new stuff by then.
They certainly won't be forgotten by farmers or pensioners if those round here are anything to go by, they absolutely despise Starmer and Reeves and will vote for whoever is best placed to beat Labour next time.
Same goes for small business owners spltting blood over the NI rise for employers
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.
The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
Correct. They are virulently anti-cycle lane around me, which is astonishing if you think about it. Probably the most Lib Demmy policy you could imagine; Davey actually cycled into his manifesto launch.
They are mopping up what remains of the Conservatives after Farage has finished with his share.
First para, correct.
Second para, less so. The LD share is static since July and while the Reform voteshare is up it is at Labour not Tory expense now
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.
Even easier to deport then. At £3k to avoid the cost of the legal process, the £700m for Rwanda policy could have been spent on returning 200,000 overstayers.
That sums up the problem entirely. You shouldn’t have to pay to deport people who are in the country illegally. If someone has overstayed their visa, they shouldn’t be allowed to stay.
If they don't have any assets, how are you going to get them back to their country of origin without taking a loss?
(I do realize that Norway - with its approximately 300 undocumented migrants - doesn't bother because people self-deport. But that's easier when you are inside Schengen.)
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
As posted earlier, the law society gazette reported the costs of legal challenges (which was the original question) at £2.3m. Legal costs of the policy will include all the costs of drafting the policy. In terms of the overall Rwanda cost, the cost of legal challenges to it was close to f all.
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?
You usually get only one go at a coup (OK, possible Trump exception).
If he'd sorted the army to be more ruthless - mass arrests of assembly members, or shot a couple of the protesters - it might have worked.
And that danger was always there, which makes they guys that stopped it pretty damn brave.
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.
Even easier to deport then. At £3k to avoid the cost of the legal process, the £700m for Rwanda policy could have been spent on returning 200,000 overstayers.
That sums up the problem entirely. You shouldn’t have to pay to deport people who are in the country illegally. If someone has overstayed their visa, they shouldn’t be allowed to stay.
If they don't have any assets, how are you going to get them back to their country of origin without taking a loss?
(I do realize that Norway - with its approximately 300 undocumented migrants - doesn't bother because people self-deport. But that's easier when you are inside Schengen.)
Of course there would be a cost to the process. I was referring to the £3k each of them were bunged.
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.
The issue with solar is that while California's electricity demand spikes in the summer when the sun is shining and the air con is going on, the UK's demands spike in winter when it is dark 16 hours of a day and the heating is on.
Solar absolutely is great at marginal costs when it works, but I don't see it as being as reliable as eg wind etc personally.
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.
I can't tell you if you are right or not. I read the article with interest and there are bits I agree with as I understand them but unlike someone like Robert, I simply don't understand the intricacies of the economics. It made for an interesting and seemingly well argued counterpoint to the normal claims about renewables but I am in no position to really judge its validity.
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
I think both those issues will be forgotten about in 4 years. There will be new stuff by then.
They certainly won't be forgotten by farmers or pensioners if those round here are anything to go by, they absolutely despise Starmer and Reeves and will vote for whoever is best placed to beat Labour next time.
Same goes for small business owners spltting blood over the NI rise for employers
A week is a long time in politics. 4 years is an eon.
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.
If you don't warehouse thousands of asylum seekers in socially deprived areas then there are no asylum seekers to get angry about.... Reform need an immigration problem to be electorally successful, so they aren't going to solve it, and since the Conservatives let Crosby take charge of their electoral strategy that's been their tactic as well.
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?
You usually get only one go at a coup (OK, possible Trump exception).
If he'd sorted the army to be more ruthless - mass arrests of assembly members, or shot a couple of the protesters - it might have worked.
And that danger was always there, which makes they guys that stopped it pretty damn brave.
I get the impression the army is going to be pretty pissed it was dragged into this. They were quick enough to withdraw once it became clear that Parliament were not going to back down. That struck me as being more a case of being ill informed and used rather than being part of any great coup plot. Did the President simply think he could bluff his way through it?
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.
Even easier to deport then. At £3k to avoid the cost of the legal process, the £700m for Rwanda policy could have been spent on returning 200,000 overstayers.
That sums up the problem entirely. You shouldn’t have to pay to deport people who are in the country illegally. If someone has overstayed their visa, they shouldn’t be allowed to stay.
If they don't have any assets, how are you going to get them back to their country of origin without taking a loss?
(I do realize that Norway - with its approximately 300 undocumented migrants - doesn't bother because people self-deport. But that's easier when you are inside Schengen.)
Of course there would be a cost to the process. I was referring to the £3k each of them were bunged.
And is one of the conditions that they're not ever allowed back, or can they do the same thing next year and get a free flight back home again?
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.
That's rather clever Bart. Although one's head hurts after thinking about it.
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.
The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
Ken Clark on LBC suggested that the IHT on farms is fine. He criticised the Thatcher Tories for implementing it. He also said he would remove WFP which he claimed was a last ditch Gordon throw of the dice. Both taxes he explains have been poorly sold by Reeves. He disagrees with the employers NI policy. He said her error was promising not to increase income tax and VAT. He says he would have jacked up VAT and to Hell with the popularity consequences.
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.
Even easier to deport then. At £3k to avoid the cost of the legal process, the £700m for Rwanda policy could have been spent on returning 200,000 overstayers.
That sums up the problem entirely. You shouldn’t have to pay to deport people who are in the country illegally. If someone has overstayed their visa, they shouldn’t be allowed to stay.
If they don't have any assets, how are you going to get them back to their country of origin without taking a loss?
(I do realize that Norway - with its approximately 300 undocumented migrants - doesn't bother because people self-deport. But that's easier when you are inside Schengen.)
Of course there would be a cost to the process. I was referring to the £3k each of them were bunged.
And is one of the conditions that they're not ever allowed back, or can they do the same thing next year and get a free flight back home again?
Well, they’d probably not have much luck getting a visa again if they overstayed the first time.
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.
Even easier to deport then. At £3k to avoid the cost of the legal process, the £700m for Rwanda policy could have been spent on returning 200,000 overstayers.
That sums up the problem entirely. You shouldn’t have to pay to deport people who are in the country illegally. If someone has overstayed their visa, they shouldn’t be allowed to stay.
If they don't have any assets, how are you going to get them back to their country of origin without taking a loss?
(I do realize that Norway - with its approximately 300 undocumented migrants - doesn't bother because people self-deport. But that's easier when you are inside Schengen.)
Of course there would be a cost to the process. I was referring to the £3k each of them were bunged.
You've identified and located your overstayer
Option 1 - go through the legal process, including appeals, pay G4S to detain them somewhere like Yarlswood throughout, eventually pay G4S to take them to the airport and charter a flight. Fight legal case and pay compensation for G4S abuses.
Option 2 - offer them £3k to leave and charter flight
Which option is going to be cheaper and more successful, where "success" is number of returned overstayers/£?
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.
Even easier to deport then. At £3k to avoid the cost of the legal process, the £700m for Rwanda policy could have been spent on returning 200,000 overstayers.
That sums up the problem entirely. You shouldn’t have to pay to deport people who are in the country illegally. If someone has overstayed their visa, they shouldn’t be allowed to stay.
If they don't have any assets, how are you going to get them back to their country of origin without taking a loss?
(I do realize that Norway - with its approximately 300 undocumented migrants - doesn't bother because people self-deport. But that's easier when you are inside Schengen.)
Of course there would be a cost to the process. I was referring to the £3k each of them were bunged.
And is one of the conditions that they're not ever allowed back, or can they do the same thing next year and get a free flight back home again?
If you have ever been deported from a country, it is usually exceptionally hard to reenter.
(I just looked it up, and bizarrely it appears you only get a 5 to 10 year ban for overstaying your visa by six months or more and getting deported at HMG's expense.)
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.
If you don't warehouse thousands of asylum seekers in socially deprived areas then there are no asylum seekers to get angry about.... Reform need an immigration problem to be electorally successful, so they aren't going to solve it, and since the Conservatives let Crosby take charge of their electoral strategy that's been their tactic as well.
The Managerial skills of SKS. Getting flights off the ground at 3k per head to remove almost 10000 people in 4 months.
Contrast and compare to 700m for 4 volunteers to Rwanda at 175million a head
Who'd have thought it was so simple.
If he can upscale that 3 fold per annum just imagine the last breath seeping out of the Reform bubble in 4 years time.
It's not rocket science it's method and process driven commonsense.
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.
Even easier to deport then. At £3k to avoid the cost of the legal process, the £700m for Rwanda policy could have been spent on returning 200,000 overstayers.
That sums up the problem entirely. You shouldn’t have to pay to deport people who are in the country illegally. If someone has overstayed their visa, they shouldn’t be allowed to stay.
If they don't have any assets, how are you going to get them back to their country of origin without taking a loss?
(I do realize that Norway - with its approximately 300 undocumented migrants - doesn't bother because people self-deport. But that's easier when you are inside Schengen.)
Of course there would be a cost to the process. I was referring to the £3k each of them were bunged.
And is one of the conditions that they're not ever allowed back, or can they do the same thing next year and get a free flight back home again?
If you have ever been deported from a country, it is usually exceptionally hard to reenter.
(I just looked it up, and bizarrely it appears you only get a 5 to 10 year ban for overstaying your visa by six months or more and getting deported at HMG's expense.)
If you leave voluntarily at your own expense, but overstayed your visa by 1 to 30 days, you get a one year ban. Which seems comparatively harsh. Personally, I would have a blanket ban on people who are repatriated at HMG's expense.
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.
That's rather clever Bart. Although one's head hurts after thinking about it.
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.
The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
Ken Clark on LBC suggested that the IHT on farms is fine. He criticised the Thatcher Tories for implementing it. He also said he would remove WFP which he claimed was a last ditch Gordon throw of the dice. Both taxes he explains have been poorly sold by Reeves. He disagrees with the employers NI policy. He said her error was promising not to increase income tax and VAT. He says he would have jacked up VAT and to Hell with the popularity consequences.
Ken Clarke is too leftwing even for the LDs these days, he belongs in Starmer Labour
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.
That's rather clever Bart. Although one's head hurts after thinking about it.
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.
The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
Ken Clark on LBC suggested that the IHT on farms is fine. He criticised the Thatcher Tories for implementing it. He also said he would remove WFP which he claimed was a last ditch Gordon throw of the dice. Both taxes he explains have been poorly sold by Reeves. He disagrees with the employers NI policy. He said her error was promising not to increase income tax and VAT. He says he would have jacked up VAT and to Hell with the popularity consequences.
Ken Clarke is too leftwing even for the LDs these days, he belongs in Starmer Labour
Removing welfare is "leftwing" in your eyes.
I don't think the problem is that Ken Clarke has changed.
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.
That's rather clever Bart. Although one's head hurts after thinking about it.
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.
The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
Ken Clark on LBC suggested that the IHT on farms is fine. He criticised the Thatcher Tories for implementing it. He also said he would remove WFP which he claimed was a last ditch Gordon throw of the dice. Both taxes he explains have been poorly sold by Reeves. He disagrees with the employers NI policy. He said her error was promising not to increase income tax and VAT. He says he would have jacked up VAT and to Hell with the popularity consequences.
Ken Clarke is too leftwing even for the LDs these days, he belongs in Starmer Labour
Labour embracing the scourge of public sector workers in his day would be like the Democrats embracing Bush and Cheney.
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
I think both those issues will be forgotten about in 4 years. There will be new stuff by then.
They certainly won't be forgotten by farmers or pensioners if those round here are anything to go by, they absolutely despise Starmer and Reeves and will vote for whoever is best placed to beat Labour next time.
Same goes for small business owners spltting blood over the NI rise for employers
A week is a long time in politics. 4 years is an eon.
Once a government has a moment which collapses its popularity it rarely recovers to win another majority, Labour's budget was their Black Wednesday or Partygate/Truss budget disaster or Dementia Tax
For some reason I'm quite surprised that Tim Montgomerie has joined Reform UK.
He tried to speak to Kemi but she only answers her phone on Wednesday and Thursday.
Too busy spending time with the family and practicing the origami to fold the A4 in to 6 perfect folds for her Pmq questions to be written on tomorrow.
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.
That's rather clever Bart. Although one's head hurts after thinking about it.
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.
The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
Ken Clark on LBC suggested that the IHT on farms is fine. He criticised the Thatcher Tories for implementing it. He also said he would remove WFP which he claimed was a last ditch Gordon throw of the dice. Both taxes he explains have been poorly sold by Reeves. He disagrees with the employers NI policy. He said her error was promising not to increase income tax and VAT. He says he would have jacked up VAT and to Hell with the popularity consequences.
Ken Clarke is too leftwing even for the LDs these days, he belongs in Starmer Labour
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.
If you don't warehouse thousands of asylum seekers in socially deprived areas then there are no asylum seekers to get angry about.... Reform need an immigration problem to be electorally successful, so they aren't going to solve it, and since the Conservatives let Crosby take charge of their electoral strategy that's been their tactic as well.
The Managerial skills of SKS. Getting flights off the ground at 3k per head to remove almost 10000 people in 4 months.
Contrast and compare to 700m for 4 volunteers to Rwanda at 175million a head
Who'd have thought it was so simple.
If he can upscale that 3 fold per annum just imagine the last breath seeping out of the Reform bubble in 4 years time.
It's not rocket science it's method and process driven commonsense.
The morality of SKS.
Straight for the low hanging fruit - women and young children shipped to Brazil on Secret Flights, back to where the street gangs said they would murder them if they ever saw them again.
Have you any idea what happens the other end, She Corn? Frightened Women and children dumped on a tarmac whilst SKS secret extradition flights roar off into distance for the next pay load.
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?
You usually get only one go at a coup (OK, possible Trump exception).
If he'd sorted the army to be more ruthless - mass arrests of assembly members, or shot a couple of the protesters - it might have worked.
And that danger was always there, which makes they guys that stopped it pretty damn brave.
I get the impression the army is going to be pretty pissed it was dragged into this. They were quick enough to withdraw once it became clear that Parliament were not going to back down. That struck me as being more a case of being ill informed and used rather than being part of any great coup plot. Did the President simply think he could bluff his way through it?
Possibly, but it seems extremely unlikely that he attempted this without at least some army support.
With a small core of supporters in command, and a few seasoned vets, it's not impossible he might have succeeded. Or at least caused a bloody conflict.
We'll probably find out more over the next couple of months, as it seems improbable he stays in office.
One thing I don't think we get is how Korea is still something of a hierarchical culture, in a way that we aren't. That does cut against the democratic instinct.
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
I think both those issues will be forgotten about in 4 years. There will be new stuff by then.
They certainly won't be forgotten by farmers or pensioners if those round here are anything to go by, they absolutely despise Starmer and Reeves and will vote for whoever is best placed to beat Labour next time.
Same goes for small business owners spltting blood over the NI rise for employers
A week is a long time in politics. 4 years is an eon.
That would be the small businesses many if whom are exempt. Plus the majority of farmers who are exempt.
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.
That's rather clever Bart. Although one's head hurts after thinking about it.
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.
The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
Ken Clark on LBC suggested that the IHT on farms is fine. He criticised the Thatcher Tories for implementing it. He also said he would remove WFP which he claimed was a last ditch Gordon throw of the dice. Both taxes he explains have been poorly sold by Reeves. He disagrees with the employers NI policy. He said her error was promising not to increase income tax and VAT. He says he would have jacked up VAT and to Hell with the popularity consequences.
Ken Clarke is too leftwing even for the LDs these days, he belongs in Starmer Labour
Labour embracing the scourge of public sector workers in his day would be like the Democrats embracing Bush and Cheney.
For some reason I'm quite surprised that Tim Montgomerie has joined Reform UK.
He tried to speak to Kemi but she only answers her phone on Wednesday and Thursday.
Too busy spending time with the family and practicing the origami to fold the A4 in to 6 perfect folds for her Pmq questions to be written on tomorrow.
Western politics is bifurcating into two sides: for and against Musk. Kemi risks getting caught in the middle, unlike Giorgia Meloni.
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.
That's rather clever Bart. Although one's head hurts after thinking about it.
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.
The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
Ken Clark on LBC suggested that the IHT on farms is fine. He criticised the Thatcher Tories for implementing it. He also said he would remove WFP which he claimed was a last ditch Gordon throw of the dice. Both taxes he explains have been poorly sold by Reeves. He disagrees with the employers NI policy. He said her error was promising not to increase income tax and VAT. He says he would have jacked up VAT and to Hell with the popularity consequences.
Ken Clarke is too leftwing even for the LDs these days, he belongs in Starmer Labour
Good summary by Ken Clarke and you do insult him if you think he would join labour
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.
That's rather clever Bart. Although one's head hurts after thinking about it.
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.
The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
Ken Clark on LBC suggested that the IHT on farms is fine. He criticised the Thatcher Tories for implementing it. He also said he would remove WFP which he claimed was a last ditch Gordon throw of the dice. Both taxes he explains have been poorly sold by Reeves. He disagrees with the employers NI policy. He said her error was promising not to increase income tax and VAT. He says he would have jacked up VAT and to Hell with the popularity consequences.
Ken Clarke is too leftwing even for the LDs these days, he belongs in Starmer Labour
Removing welfare is "leftwing" in your eyes.
I don't think the problem is that Ken Clarke has changed.
He is the same EUphile corporatist he has always been
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!
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.
That's rather clever Bart. Although one's head hurts after thinking about it.
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.
The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
Ken Clark on LBC suggested that the IHT on farms is fine. He criticised the Thatcher Tories for implementing it. He also said he would remove WFP which he claimed was a last ditch Gordon throw of the dice. Both taxes he explains have been poorly sold by Reeves. He disagrees with the employers NI policy. He said her error was promising not to increase income tax and VAT. He says he would have jacked up VAT and to Hell with the popularity consequences.
Ken Clarke is too leftwing even for the LDs these days, he belongs in Starmer Labour
Good summary by Ken Clarke and you do insult him if you think he would join labour
Well given he was anti Brexit and is pro tractor tax and pro WFA cut there isn't much he disagrees with Starmer on
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!
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.
That's rather clever Bart. Although one's head hurts after thinking about it.
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.
The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
Ken Clark on LBC suggested that the IHT on farms is fine. He criticised the Thatcher Tories for implementing it. He also said he would remove WFP which he claimed was a last ditch Gordon throw of the dice. Both taxes he explains have been poorly sold by Reeves. He disagrees with the employers NI policy. He said her error was promising not to increase income tax and VAT. He says he would have jacked up VAT and to Hell with the popularity consequences.
Ken Clarke is too leftwing even for the LDs these days, he belongs in Starmer Labour
Good summary by Ken Clarke and you do insult him if you think he would join labour
Well given he was anti Brexit and is pro tractor tax and pro WFA cut there isn't much he disagrees with Starmer on
Of course there is and not least the growth and job destroying Reeves budget
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
I think both those issues will be forgotten about in 4 years. There will be new stuff by then.
They certainly won't be forgotten by farmers or pensioners if those round here are anything to go by, they absolutely despise Starmer and Reeves and will vote for whoever is best placed to beat Labour next time.
Same goes for small business owners spltting blood over the NI rise for employers
A week is a long time in politics. 4 years is an eon.
That would be the small businesses many if whom are exempt. Plus the majority of farmers who are exempt.
1m small businesses will pay less or no more NI next year. The government have failed dismally on the PR front as very few people understand that.
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
I think both those issues will be forgotten about in 4 years. There will be new stuff by then.
They certainly won't be forgotten by farmers or pensioners if those round here are anything to go by, they absolutely despise Starmer and Reeves and will vote for whoever is best placed to beat Labour next time.
Same goes for small business owners spltting blood over the NI rise for employers
A week is a long time in politics. 4 years is an eon.
That would be the small businesses many if whom are exempt. Plus the majority of farmers who are exempt.
1m small businesses will pay less or no more NI next year. The government have failed dismally on the PR front as very few people understand that.
Many of them will see a substantial rise in their wage bill with the big increase in the NMW
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.
The issue with solar is that while California's electricity demand spikes in the summer when the sun is shining and the air con is going on, the UK's demands spike in winter when it is dark 16 hours of a day and the heating is on.
Solar absolutely is great at marginal costs when it works, but I don't see it as being as reliable as eg wind etc personally.
Three or four years I would have agreed with you. However now the cost of batteries (sometimes living inside an EV) is plummeting.
We’ve not yet got a battery, but I know plenty of smug MC families bragging about their low or even zero electricity bills.
Give it a few years and this will be widespread. Doesn’t help the buggers living in tenements though
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.
That's rather clever Bart. Although one's head hurts after thinking about it.
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.
The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
Ken Clark on LBC suggested that the IHT on farms is fine. He criticised the Thatcher Tories for implementing it. He also said he would remove WFP which he claimed was a last ditch Gordon throw of the dice. Both taxes he explains have been poorly sold by Reeves. He disagrees with the employers NI policy. He said her error was promising not to increase income tax and VAT. He says he would have jacked up VAT and to Hell with the popularity consequences.
Ken Clarke is too leftwing even for the LDs these days, he belongs in Starmer Labour
Labour embracing the scourge of public sector workers in his day would be like the Democrats embracing Bush and Cheney.
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.
If you don't warehouse thousands of asylum seekers in socially deprived areas then there are no asylum seekers to get angry about.... Reform need an immigration problem to be electorally successful, so they aren't going to solve it, and since the Conservatives let Crosby take charge of their electoral strategy that's been their tactic as well.
The Managerial skills of SKS. Getting flights off the ground at 3k per head to remove almost 10000 people in 4 months.
Contrast and compare to 700m for 4 volunteers to Rwanda at 175million a head
Who'd have thought it was so simple.
If he can upscale that 3 fold per annum just imagine the last breath seeping out of the Reform bubble in 4 years time.
It's not rocket science it's method and process driven commonsense.
The morality of SKS.
Straight for the low hanging fruit - women and young children shipped to Brazil on Secret Flights, back to where the street gangs said they would murder them if they ever saw them again.
Have you any idea what happens the other end, She Corn? Frightened Women and children dumped on a tarmac whilst SKS secret extradition flights roar off into distance for the next pay load.
Hey - they either failed the tests or were very happy to take the money to go home...
"A 'really positive' example: Reform's deputy leader defends MP convicted of assaulting girlfriend Finally with Reform UK's deputy leader, Richard Tice, we ask about his party colleague James McMurdock.
It's emerged he was jailed when he was 19 for repeatedly kicking his girlfriend, having not disclosed the conviction before he was elected.
'Gone full circle'
Mr Tice defends his colleague, saying: "We are a great Christian nation. Are you seriously saying that if someone makes a bad mistake in life, age 19, that there's no redemption they are doomed as a sinner forever?
"The whole point of Christianity is a sense of - if you've done something wrong, you pay your price. And at the end of that sentence, whatever it is, then, in a sense you've done your bit, you served your punishment."
He goes on to say it is "remarkable" that Mr McMurdock has "gone full circle" and done well in life after his punishment."
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
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
I think both those issues will be forgotten about in 4 years. There will be new stuff by then.
They certainly won't be forgotten by farmers or pensioners if those round here are anything to go by, they absolutely despise Starmer and Reeves and will vote for whoever is best placed to beat Labour next time.
Same goes for small business owners spltting blood over the NI rise for employers
A week is a long time in politics. 4 years is an eon.
That would be the small businesses many if whom are exempt. Plus the majority of farmers who are exempt.
1m small businesses will pay less or no more NI next year. The government have failed dismally on the PR front as very few people understand that.
Many of them will see a substantial rise in their wage bill with the big increase in the NMW
Sure, but again that is a PR battle. Wages going up good vs business costs going up bad. A PR battle the govt should be doing much better on.
For some reason I'm quite surprised that Tim Montgomerie has joined Reform UK.
He tried to speak to Kemi but she only answers her phone on Wednesday and Thursday.
Too busy spending time with the family and practicing the origami to fold the A4 in to 6 perfect folds for her Pmq questions to be written on tomorrow.
Western politics is bifurcating into two sides: for and against Musk. Kemi risks getting caught in the middle, unlike Giorgia Meloni.
There is a serious issue around how much power we allow to the richest billionaires.
Are they above the law? Do they get to choose who our governments are going to be ? Etc.
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
I think both those issues will be forgotten about in 4 years. There will be new stuff by then.
They certainly won't be forgotten by farmers or pensioners if those round here are anything to go by, they absolutely despise Starmer and Reeves and will vote for whoever is best placed to beat Labour next time.
Same goes for small business owners spltting blood over the NI rise for employers
A week is a long time in politics. 4 years is an eon.
That would be the small businesses many if whom are exempt. Plus the majority of farmers who are exempt.
1m small businesses will pay less or no more NI next year. The government have failed dismally on the PR front as very few people understand that.
Yes, I think the doubling of the employment allowance should get more focus. It's effectively a £5,000 bung for the equivalent of any business with four or more employees on NMW. That's a tiny amount of cash for someone like Tesco, but not too bad for outfits employing 5 - 10 people.
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
I think both those issues will be forgotten about in 4 years. There will be new stuff by then.
They certainly won't be forgotten by farmers or pensioners if those round here are anything to go by, they absolutely despise Starmer and Reeves and will vote for whoever is best placed to beat Labour next time.
Same goes for small business owners spltting blood over the NI rise for employers
A week is a long time in politics. 4 years is an eon.
That would be the small businesses many if whom are exempt. Plus the majority of farmers who are exempt.
1m small businesses will pay less or no more NI next year. The government have failed dismally on the PR front as very few people understand that.
Yes, I think the doubling of the employment allowance should get more focus. It's effectively a £5,000 bung for the equivalent of any business with four or more employees on NMW. That's a tiny amount of cash for someone like Tesco, but not too bad for outfits employing 5 - 10 people.
Tesco dont get any employment allowance - if your total NI bill >£100k you arent eligible.
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
No he hasn't. They've already repudiated Biden for the pardon.
But I can see it got you excited.
'They' can repudiate him all they want. It's still going to stick to them.
I wonder if his economic policies will now bear fruit. With a different foreign policy he might have been a great President.
Unless they actually back the pardon, I don't think it will. Even political journalists already seem to have forgotten the grubbier details of Trump's pardons, for example.
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!
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
I think both those issues will be forgotten about in 4 years. There will be new stuff by then.
They certainly won't be forgotten by farmers or pensioners if those round here are anything to go by, they absolutely despise Starmer and Reeves and will vote for whoever is best placed to beat Labour next time.
Same goes for small business owners spltting blood over the NI rise for employers
A week is a long time in politics. 4 years is an eon.
That would be the small businesses many if whom are exempt. Plus the majority of farmers who are exempt.
1m small businesses will pay less or no more NI next year. The government have failed dismally on the PR front as very few people understand that.
Many of them will see a substantial rise in their wage bill with the big increase in the NMW
I think that's unlikely too. Tesco currently pay £12.02, 5% more than the NMW of £11.44. I would not surprised if they end up paying substantially more than the new NMW to attract and retain staff.
For some reason I'm quite surprised that Tim Montgomerie has joined Reform UK.
He tried to speak to Kemi but she only answers her phone on Wednesday and Thursday.
Too busy spending time with the family and practicing the origami to fold the A4 in to 6 perfect folds for her Pmq questions to be written on tomorrow.
Western politics is bifurcating into two sides: for and against Musk. Kemi risks getting caught in the middle, unlike Giorgia Meloni.
There is a serious issue around how much power we allow to the richest billionaires.
Are they above the law? Do they get to choose who our governments are going to be ? Etc.
Are they: Yes and Yes. Should they: Of course not and of course not.
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
I think both those issues will be forgotten about in 4 years. There will be new stuff by then.
They certainly won't be forgotten by farmers or pensioners if those round here are anything to go by, they absolutely despise Starmer and Reeves and will vote for whoever is best placed to beat Labour next time.
Same goes for small business owners spltting blood over the NI rise for employers
A week is a long time in politics. 4 years is an eon.
That would be the small businesses many if whom are exempt. Plus the majority of farmers who are exempt.
1m small businesses will pay less or no more NI next year. The government have failed dismally on the PR front as very few people understand that.
Yes, I think the doubling of the employment allowance should get more focus. It's effectively a £5,000 bung for the equivalent of any business with four or more employees on NMW. That's a tiny amount of cash for someone like Tesco, but not too bad for outfits employing 5 - 10 people.
Tesco dont get any employment allowance - if your total NI bill >£100k you arent eligible.
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
No he hasn't. They've already repudiated Biden for the pardon.
But I can see it got you excited.
'They' can repudiate him all they want. It's still going to stick to them.
I wonder if his economic policies will now bear fruit. With a different foreign policy he might have been a great President.
Unless they actually back the pardon, I don't think it will. Even political journalists already seem to have forgotten the grubbier details of Trump's pardons, for example.
Of course they have. They don’t want to remember what they said about the prospect of Trump pardoning his children.
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
I think both those issues will be forgotten about in 4 years. There will be new stuff by then.
They certainly won't be forgotten by farmers or pensioners if those round here are anything to go by, they absolutely despise Starmer and Reeves and will vote for whoever is best placed to beat Labour next time.
Same goes for small business owners spltting blood over the NI rise for employers
A week is a long time in politics. 4 years is an eon.
That would be the small businesses many if whom are exempt. Plus the majority of farmers who are exempt.
1m small businesses will pay less or no more NI next year. The government have failed dismally on the PR front as very few people understand that.
Yes, I think the doubling of the employment allowance should get more focus. It's effectively a £5,000 bung for the equivalent of any business with four or more employees on NMW. That's a tiny amount of cash for someone like Tesco, but not too bad for outfits employing 5 - 10 people.
Tesco dont get any employment allowance - if your total NI bill >£100k you arent eligible.
But a million other businesses will benefit from it..
My car was in for service and Mercedes courtesy car was an ECQ 250+ at a retail price of £56750
A lovely car and of course high tec, but only max of about 200 miles range which would mean our trip to Lossiemouth would require 3 stops, whereas my previous BMW took me there and back to Perth on one tank of diesel
The other thing I had not experienced was the immediate drop in speed when lifting the foot off the pedal. Mercedes told me this can be adjusted but they have it on maximum to save the battery and the range
Anyway good for fleet drivers and the wealthy but I will stick to my petrol car
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
I think both those issues will be forgotten about in 4 years. There will be new stuff by then.
They certainly won't be forgotten by farmers or pensioners if those round here are anything to go by, they absolutely despise Starmer and Reeves and will vote for whoever is best placed to beat Labour next time.
Same goes for small business owners spltting blood over the NI rise for employers
A week is a long time in politics. 4 years is an eon.
That would be the small businesses many if whom are exempt. Plus the majority of farmers who are exempt.
1m small businesses will pay less or no more NI next year. The government have failed dismally on the PR front as very few people understand that.
Many of them will see a substantial rise in their wage bill with the big increase in the NMW
I think that's unlikely too. Tesco currently pay £12.02, 5% more than the NMW of £11.44. I would not surprised if they end up paying substantially more than the new NMW to attract and retain staff.
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
I think both those issues will be forgotten about in 4 years. There will be new stuff by then.
They certainly won't be forgotten by farmers or pensioners if those round here are anything to go by, they absolutely despise Starmer and Reeves and will vote for whoever is best placed to beat Labour next time.
Same goes for small business owners spltting blood over the NI rise for employers
A week is a long time in politics. 4 years is an eon.
That would be the small businesses many if whom are exempt. Plus the majority of farmers who are exempt.
1m small businesses will pay less or no more NI next year. The government have failed dismally on the PR front as very few people understand that.
Yes, I think the doubling of the employment allowance should get more focus. It's effectively a £5,000 bung for the equivalent of any business with four or more employees on NMW. That's a tiny amount of cash for someone like Tesco, but not too bad for outfits employing 5 - 10 people.
Tesco dont get any employment allowance - if your total NI bill >£100k you arent eligible.
But a million other businesses will benefit from it..
Indeed, mine included. Labour need to make more of it and fight back a bit.
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.
The issue with solar is that while California's electricity demand spikes in the summer when the sun is shining and the air con is going on, the UK's demands spike in winter when it is dark 16 hours of a day and the heating is on.
Solar absolutely is great at marginal costs when it works, but I don't see it as being as reliable as eg wind etc personally.
Three or four years I would have agreed with you. However now the cost of batteries (sometimes living inside an EV) is plummeting.
We’ve not yet got a battery, but I know plenty of smug MC families bragging about their low or even zero electricity bills.
Give it a few years and this will be widespread. Doesn’t help the buggers living in tenements though
Though there are setups like this that can produce a bit under a kilowatt;
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!
"A 'really positive' example: Reform's deputy leader defends MP convicted of assaulting girlfriend Finally with Reform UK's deputy leader, Richard Tice, we ask about his party colleague James McMurdock.
It's emerged he was jailed when he was 19 for repeatedly kicking his girlfriend, having not disclosed the conviction before he was elected.
'Gone full circle'
Mr Tice defends his colleague, saying: "We are a great Christian nation. Are you seriously saying that if someone makes a bad mistake in life, age 19, that there's no redemption they are doomed as a sinner forever?
"The whole point of Christianity is a sense of - if you've done something wrong, you pay your price. And at the end of that sentence, whatever it is, then, in a sense you've done your bit, you served your punishment."
He goes on to say it is "remarkable" that Mr McMurdock has "gone full circle" and done well in life after his punishment."
Tice is right in my view. McMurdock served his time and there is no bar to him remaining the MP he was elected to be. Let voters judge if they wish to re elect him next time, they may well do given even the President elect of the USA is a former convicted criminal.
As I said last week I have the same view re Haigh, her mistake was not fully disclosing her conviction when she joined Cabinet but she can certainly remain an MP. If re elected and Labour stays in power she could even rejoin the Cabinet
My car was in for service and Mercedes courtesy car was an ECQ 250+ at a retail price of £56750
A lovely car and of course high tec, but only max of about 200 miles range which would mean our trip to Lossiemouth would require 3 stops, whereas my previous BMW took me there and back to Perth on one tank of diesel
The other thing I had not experienced was the immediate drop in speed when lifting the foot off the pedal. Mercedes told me this can be adjusted but they have it on maximum to save the battery and the range
Anyway good for fleet drivers and the wealthy but I will stick to my petrol car
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
I think both those issues will be forgotten about in 4 years. There will be new stuff by then.
They certainly won't be forgotten by farmers or pensioners if those round here are anything to go by, they absolutely despise Starmer and Reeves and will vote for whoever is best placed to beat Labour next time.
Same goes for small business owners spltting blood over the NI rise for employers
A week is a long time in politics. 4 years is an eon.
That would be the small businesses many if whom are exempt. Plus the majority of farmers who are exempt.
1m small businesses will pay less or no more NI next year. The government have failed dismally on the PR front as very few people understand that.
Many of them will see a substantial rise in their wage bill with the big increase in the NMW
I think that's unlikely too. Tesco currently pay £12.02, 5% more than the NMW of £11.44. I would not surprised if they end up paying substantially more than the new NMW to attract and retain staff.
Yes but they are not a small business
Only 1.2% of job openings around me are offering the NMW. Almost everything is over £12 already. The labour market is tight, and small businesses have to take the market rate like everyone else.
We could always open the floodgates on immigration if you're so concerned about labour costs.
"A 'really positive' example: Reform's deputy leader defends MP convicted of assaulting girlfriend Finally with Reform UK's deputy leader, Richard Tice, we ask about his party colleague James McMurdock.
It's emerged he was jailed when he was 19 for repeatedly kicking his girlfriend, having not disclosed the conviction before he was elected.
'Gone full circle'
Mr Tice defends his colleague, saying: "We are a great Christian nation. Are you seriously saying that if someone makes a bad mistake in life, age 19, that there's no redemption they are doomed as a sinner forever?
"The whole point of Christianity is a sense of - if you've done something wrong, you pay your price. And at the end of that sentence, whatever it is, then, in a sense you've done your bit, you served your punishment."
He goes on to say it is "remarkable" that Mr McMurdock has "gone full circle" and done well in life after his punishment."
Tice is right in my view. McMurdock served his time and there is no bar to him remaining the MP he was elected to be. Let voters judge if they wish to re elect him next time, they may well do given even the President elect of the USA is a former convicted criminal
Two wrongs do not make a right and Tice defending someone who allegedly kicked his girlfriend is simply unacceptable
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.
The issue with solar is that while California's electricity demand spikes in the summer when the sun is shining and the air con is going on, the UK's demands spike in winter when it is dark 16 hours of a day and the heating is on.
Solar absolutely is great at marginal costs when it works, but I don't see it as being as reliable as eg wind etc personally.
Three or four years I would have agreed with you. However now the cost of batteries (sometimes living inside an EV) is plummeting.
We’ve not yet got a battery, but I know plenty of smug MC families bragging about their low or even zero electricity bills.
Give it a few years and this will be widespread. Doesn’t help the buggers living in tenements though
Though there are setups like this that can produce a bit under a kilowatt;
The cheaper the technology gets (and there's no reason why the price shouldn't fall some more), the more marginal applications become sensible.
For now, at least, it's not solar or wind, both of them can tap decent amounts of energy at a good price.
Got to say the only reason I haven’t got home batteries is that I can’t make the maths work once the electrician adds his costs. I find paying £1500 for a couple of hours work (which it is when I compare their prices to what I can get buy the batteries for) rather annoying.
And I suspect there isn’t much further price reductions on the batteries
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.
That's rather clever Bart. Although one's head hurts after thinking about it.
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.
The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
Ken Clark on LBC suggested that the IHT on farms is fine. He criticised the Thatcher Tories for implementing it. He also said he would remove WFP which he claimed was a last ditch Gordon throw of the dice. Both taxes he explains have been poorly sold by Reeves. He disagrees with the employers NI policy. He said her error was promising not to increase income tax and VAT. He says he would have jacked up VAT and to Hell with the popularity consequences.
Ken Clarke is too leftwing even for the LDs these days, he belongs in Starmer Labour
Good summary by Ken Clarke and you do insult him if you think he would join labour
Well given he was anti Brexit and is pro tractor tax and pro WFA cut there isn't much he disagrees with Starmer on
Of course there is and not least the growth and job destroying Reeves budget
He just said he agreed with most of Reeves' budget
"A 'really positive' example: Reform's deputy leader defends MP convicted of assaulting girlfriend Finally with Reform UK's deputy leader, Richard Tice, we ask about his party colleague James McMurdock.
It's emerged he was jailed when he was 19 for repeatedly kicking his girlfriend, having not disclosed the conviction before he was elected.
'Gone full circle'
Mr Tice defends his colleague, saying: "We are a great Christian nation. Are you seriously saying that if someone makes a bad mistake in life, age 19, that there's no redemption they are doomed as a sinner forever?
"The whole point of Christianity is a sense of - if you've done something wrong, you pay your price. And at the end of that sentence, whatever it is, then, in a sense you've done your bit, you served your punishment."
He goes on to say it is "remarkable" that Mr McMurdock has "gone full circle" and done well in life after his punishment."
Tice is right in my view. McMurdock served his time and there is no bar to him remaining the MP he was elected to be. Let voters judge if they wish to re elect him next time, they may well do given even the President elect of the USA is a former convicted criminal
Two wrongs do not make a right and Tice defending someone who allegedly kicked his girlfriend is simply unacceptable
This was many years ago and he served his time for it and it is long since a spent conviction
My car was in for service and Mercedes courtesy car was an ECQ 250+ at a retail price of £56750
A lovely car and of course high tec, but only max of about 200 miles range which would mean our trip to Lossiemouth would require 3 stops, whereas my previous BMW took me there and back to Perth on one tank of diesel
The other thing I had not experienced was the immediate drop in speed when lifting the foot off the pedal. Mercedes told me this can be adjusted but they have it on maximum to save the battery and the range
Anyway good for fleet drivers and the wealthy but I will stick to my petrol car
The other feature that I haven't come across was a red warning triangle appeared in the wing mirror as you passed a car or a car was coming past you. I can see that as useful but a bit distracting until you get used to it
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
I totally disagree with you, because the main issue is the complete opposite - they will drop concern for inflation and prices, and go expansive for growth far too early, maybe even next year. It was actually a pleasant surprise to see them copy the long history of fiscally solid Conservative government delivering painful first budgets each parliament, rather than spray it around like confetti and over cooking the economy.
This budget needed to raise money to spend, it also needed to offset spending the money raised, and do so by taking spending money from everyone - because it’s patently obvious further inflation on top of already high prices is lurking round the corner, the evidence for this is what the markets think interest rates and mortgage rates will be.
Even next years budgets need to be tax raising and fiscally tight on household spending money too. But will they be? The moment you don’t moan about them like you are, that’s when the real economic problems kick in - because the trick here is bringing back up the eroded incomes at just the right pace so it doesn’t tip over into boom and bust scenario. Softly softly catchee monkey is the phrase.
How many of the next 9 (on basis it’s budgets 2 a year regardless what they are called) won’t be anti growth and job destroying as you call it, fiscally tight as I call it, instead going for growth? There will be too many popular crowd pleasing budgets, especially in 25 and 26 I think, and it will torpedo this administration - not when they fire the torpedo, but when it explodes 24 months later. I feel confident Labour will get it wrong by going for growth and bringing back inflation. The inflation won’t help lifting up incomes, it will greedily eat up the income uplift.
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.
The issue with solar is that while California's electricity demand spikes in the summer when the sun is shining and the air con is going on, the UK's demands spike in winter when it is dark 16 hours of a day and the heating is on.
Solar absolutely is great at marginal costs when it works, but I don't see it as being as reliable as eg wind etc personally.
Three or four years I would have agreed with you. However now the cost of batteries (sometimes living inside an EV) is plummeting.
We’ve not yet got a battery, but I know plenty of smug MC families bragging about their low or even zero electricity bills.
Give it a few years and this will be widespread. Doesn’t help the buggers living in tenements though
Though there are setups like this that can produce a bit under a kilowatt;
The cheaper the technology gets (and there's no reason why the price shouldn't fall some more), the more marginal applications become sensible.
For now, at least, it's not solar or wind, both of them can tap decent amounts of energy at a good price.
Got to say the only reason I haven’t got home batteries is that I can’t make the maths work once the electrician adds his costs. I find paying £1500 for a couple of hours work (which it is when I compare their prices to what I can get buy the batteries for) rather annoying.
And I suspect there isn’t much further price reductions on the batteries
Are you including the cost of the inverter etc? It's not just the batteries.
"A 'really positive' example: Reform's deputy leader defends MP convicted of assaulting girlfriend Finally with Reform UK's deputy leader, Richard Tice, we ask about his party colleague James McMurdock.
It's emerged he was jailed when he was 19 for repeatedly kicking his girlfriend, having not disclosed the conviction before he was elected.
'Gone full circle'
Mr Tice defends his colleague, saying: "We are a great Christian nation. Are you seriously saying that if someone makes a bad mistake in life, age 19, that there's no redemption they are doomed as a sinner forever?
"The whole point of Christianity is a sense of - if you've done something wrong, you pay your price. And at the end of that sentence, whatever it is, then, in a sense you've done your bit, you served your punishment."
He goes on to say it is "remarkable" that Mr McMurdock has "gone full circle" and done well in life after his punishment."
Tice is right in my view. McMurdock served his time and there is no bar to him remaining the MP he was elected to be. Let voters judge if they wish to re elect him next time, they may well do given even the President elect of the USA is a former convicted criminal
Two wrongs do not make a right and Tice defending someone who allegedly kicked his girlfriend is simply unacceptable
This was many years ago and he served his time for it and it is long since a spent conviction
In todays society you cannot defend physical abuse of a female no matter how long ago
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.
The issue with solar is that while California's electricity demand spikes in the summer when the sun is shining and the air con is going on, the UK's demands spike in winter when it is dark 16 hours of a day and the heating is on.
Solar absolutely is great at marginal costs when it works, but I don't see it as being as reliable as eg wind etc personally.
Three or four years I would have agreed with you. However now the cost of batteries (sometimes living inside an EV) is plummeting.
We’ve not yet got a battery, but I know plenty of smug MC families bragging about their low or even zero electricity bills.
Give it a few years and this will be widespread. Doesn’t help the buggers living in tenements though
Though there are setups like this that can produce a bit under a kilowatt;
The cheaper the technology gets (and there's no reason why the price shouldn't fall some more), the more marginal applications become sensible.
For now, at least, it's not solar or wind, both of them can tap decent amounts of energy at a good price.
Got to say the only reason I haven’t got home batteries is that I can’t make the maths work once the electrician adds his costs. I find paying £1500 for a couple of hours work (which it is when I compare their prices to what I can get buy the batteries for) rather annoying.
And I suspect there isn’t much further price reductions on the batteries
The energy savings trust reckon someone living in Wick with an EV, WFH, family of four, could breakeven on them in less than 10 years. That seems like a great deal given the latitude.
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.
That's rather clever Bart. Although one's head hurts after thinking about it.
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.
The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
Ken Clark on LBC suggested that the IHT on farms is fine. He criticised the Thatcher Tories for implementing it. He also said he would remove WFP which he claimed was a last ditch Gordon throw of the dice. Both taxes he explains have been poorly sold by Reeves. He disagrees with the employers NI policy. He said her error was promising not to increase income tax and VAT. He says he would have jacked up VAT and to Hell with the popularity consequences.
Ken Clarke is too leftwing even for the LDs these days, he belongs in Starmer Labour
Good summary by Ken Clarke and you do insult him if you think he would join labour
Well given he was anti Brexit and is pro tractor tax and pro WFA cut there isn't much he disagrees with Starmer on
Of course there is and not least the growth and job destroying Reeves budget
He just said he agreed with most of Reeves' budget
The central plank of Reeves budget was rejected by Clarke
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!
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.
If you don't warehouse thousands of asylum seekers in socially deprived areas then there are no asylum seekers to get angry about.... Reform need an immigration problem to be electorally successful, so they aren't going to solve it, and since the Conservatives let Crosby take charge of their electoral strategy that's been their tactic as well.
The Managerial skills of SKS. Getting flights off the ground at 3k per head to remove almost 10000 people in 4 months.
Contrast and compare to 700m for 4 volunteers to Rwanda at 175million a head
Who'd have thought it was so simple.
If he can upscale that 3 fold per annum just imagine the last breath seeping out of the Reform bubble in 4 years time.
It's not rocket science it's method and process driven commonsense.
The morality of SKS.
Straight for the low hanging fruit - women and young children shipped to Brazil on Secret Flights, back to where the street gangs said they would murder them if they ever saw them again.
Have you any idea what happens the other end, She Corn? Frightened Women and children dumped on a tarmac whilst SKS secret extradition flights roar off into distance for the next pay load.
Hey - they either failed the tests or were very happy to take the money to go home...
Look at the picture, they look very miserable. As they absolutely should be, leaving Great Britain for Brazil.
My car was in for service and Mercedes courtesy car was an ECQ 250+ at a retail price of £56750
A lovely car and of course high tec, but only max of about 200 miles range which would mean our trip to Lossiemouth would require 3 stops, whereas my previous BMW took me there and back to Perth on one tank of diesel
The other thing I had not experienced was the immediate drop in speed when lifting the foot off the pedal. Mercedes told me this can be adjusted but they have it on maximum to save the battery and the range
Anyway good for fleet drivers and the wealthy but I will stick to my petrol car
Nope, surprisingly easy, much easier to get used to in B (regen braking) mode than D (no regen braking) I found. Range and range anxiety I'm less sure I'll get used to and for anyone thinking of an EV make sure you've got a good wifi/4G signal where you're going to site your charge point. Otherwise if you're using intelligent charging it will stop charging if the connection drops out.
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.
The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
Once these become enacted, no sane party is going to propose reversing them.
My car was in for service and Mercedes courtesy car was an ECQ 250+ at a retail price of £56750
A lovely car and of course high tec, but only max of about 200 miles range which would mean our trip to Lossiemouth would require 3 stops, whereas my previous BMW took me there and back to Perth on one tank of diesel
The other thing I had not experienced was the immediate drop in speed when lifting the foot off the pedal. Mercedes told me this can be adjusted but they have it on maximum to save the battery and the range
Anyway good for fleet drivers and the wealthy but I will stick to my petrol car
My Leaf has a range of settings for "engine braking", ranging from one pedal driving for stop-start traffic to almost none for the open road. These are all selectable as you drive, and it doesn't affect range at all given that all but the hardest braking is regenerative. It does take a little while to get to know a car.
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.
The issue with solar is that while California's electricity demand spikes in the summer when the sun is shining and the air con is going on, the UK's demands spike in winter when it is dark 16 hours of a day and the heating is on.
Solar absolutely is great at marginal costs when it works, but I don't see it as being as reliable as eg wind etc personally.
I guess I'd compare it to the alternative - a plain roof generating 0% electricity year-on-year. Not exactly to be our main source, but better than just letting the sun heat up some roofing tiles or tin on and off.
I was somewhat surprised that I was in the demographic which voted Labour more than any other I did vote for them for the first time, but I just naturally assumed the very young would do so even more.
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.
The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
Once these become enacted, no sane party is going to propose reversing them.
Of course they are, they are both disastrous, awful, vindictive policies.
Many of the LDs voters now are pensioners and farmers, they will rightly demand Starmer drops them as will every other opposition party or he can forget any confidence and supply deal if he loses his majority
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.
That's rather clever Bart. Although one's head hurts after thinking about it.
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.
The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
Ken Clark on LBC suggested that the IHT on farms is fine. He criticised the Thatcher Tories for implementing it. He also said he would remove WFP which he claimed was a last ditch Gordon throw of the dice. Both taxes he explains have been poorly sold by Reeves. He disagrees with the employers NI policy. He said her error was promising not to increase income tax and VAT. He says he would have jacked up VAT and to Hell with the popularity consequences.
Ken Clarke is too leftwing even for the LDs these days, he belongs in Starmer Labour
Good summary by Ken Clarke and you do insult him if you think he would join labour
Well given he was anti Brexit and is pro tractor tax and pro WFA cut there isn't much he disagrees with Starmer on
Of course there is and not least the growth and job destroying Reeves budget
He just said he agreed with most of Reeves' budget
The central plank of Reeves budget was rejected by Clarke
No it wasn't, he backed the tractor tax and WFA cut
My car was in for service and Mercedes courtesy car was an ECQ 250+ at a retail price of £56750
A lovely car and of course high tec, but only max of about 200 miles range which would mean our trip to Lossiemouth would require 3 stops, whereas my previous BMW took me there and back to Perth on one tank of diesel
The other thing I had not experienced was the immediate drop in speed when lifting the foot off the pedal. Mercedes told me this can be adjusted but they have it on maximum to save the battery and the range
Anyway good for fleet drivers and the wealthy but I will stick to my petrol car
My Leaf has a range of settings for "engine braking", ranging from one pedal driving for stop-start traffic to almost none for the open road. These are all selectable as you drive, and it doesn't affect range at all given that all but the hardest braking is regenerative. It does take a little while to get to know a car.
To be fair I only drove the car from the dealer home and back totalling about 20 miles so I was not familiar with the detail, though the dashboard and controls were virtually identical to my B180 and no doubt that is why I found it easy to drive
"A 'really positive' example: Reform's deputy leader defends MP convicted of assaulting girlfriend Finally with Reform UK's deputy leader, Richard Tice, we ask about his party colleague James McMurdock.
It's emerged he was jailed when he was 19 for repeatedly kicking his girlfriend, having not disclosed the conviction before he was elected.
'Gone full circle'
Mr Tice defends his colleague, saying: "We are a great Christian nation. Are you seriously saying that if someone makes a bad mistake in life, age 19, that there's no redemption they are doomed as a sinner forever?
"The whole point of Christianity is a sense of - if you've done something wrong, you pay your price. And at the end of that sentence, whatever it is, then, in a sense you've done your bit, you served your punishment."
He goes on to say it is "remarkable" that Mr McMurdock has "gone full circle" and done well in life after his punishment."
Tice is right in my view. McMurdock served his time and there is no bar to him remaining the MP he was elected to be. Let voters judge if they wish to re elect him next time, they may well do given even the President elect of the USA is a former convicted criminal
Two wrongs do not make a right and Tice defending someone who allegedly kicked his girlfriend is simply unacceptable
This was many years ago and he served his time for it and it is long since a spent conviction
In todays society you cannot defend physical abuse of a female no matter how long ago
That is up to the voters of Basildon and S Thurrock to decide next time, if McMurdock is re elected they will have decided even that abuse can be forgiven if he has served his time and not done it again
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.
The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
Once these become enacted, no sane party is going to propose reversing them.
Of course they are, they are both disastrous, awful, vindictive policies.
Many of the LDs voters now are pensioners and farmers, they will rightly demand Starmer drops them as will every other opposition party or he can forget any confidence and supply deal if he loses his majority
I'm an LD voter and member, but if they campaign on a ticket of reversing these taxes I'll be voting Labour.
Comments
At £3k to avoid the cost of the legal process, the £700m for Rwanda policy could have been spent on returning 200,000 overstayers.
They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again
They are mopping up what remains of the Conservatives after Farage has finished with his share.
Same goes for small business owners spltting blood over the NI rise for employers
Second para, less so. The LD share is static since July and while the Reform voteshare is up it is at Labour not Tory expense now
(I do realize that Norway - with its approximately 300 undocumented migrants - doesn't bother because people self-deport. But that's easier when you are inside Schengen.)
In terms of the overall Rwanda cost, the cost of legal challenges to it was close to f all.
If he'd sorted the army to be more ruthless - mass arrests of assembly members, or shot a couple of the protesters - it might have worked.
And that danger was always there, which makes they guys that stopped it pretty damn brave.
Solar absolutely is great at marginal costs when it works, but I don't see it as being as reliable as eg wind etc personally.
David and
@victoriabeckham
arrive at tonight’s State Banquet at Buckingham Palace for the visit of the Emir of Qatar.
https://x.com/chrisshipitv/status/1864056527365001490
3 - 1 up v West Ham
Option 1 - go through the legal process, including appeals, pay G4S to detain them somewhere like Yarlswood throughout, eventually pay G4S to take them to the airport and charter a flight. Fight legal case and pay compensation for G4S abuses.
Option 2 - offer them £3k to leave and charter flight
Which option is going to be cheaper and more successful, where "success" is number of returned overstayers/£?
(I just looked it up, and bizarrely it appears you only get a 5 to 10 year ban for overstaying your visa by six months or more and getting deported at HMG's expense.)
Contrast and compare to 700m for 4 volunteers to Rwanda at 175million a head
Who'd have thought it was so simple.
If he can upscale that 3 fold per annum just imagine the last breath seeping out of the Reform bubble in 4 years time.
It's not rocket science it's method and process driven commonsense.
I don't think the problem is that Ken Clarke has changed.
Too busy spending time with the family and practicing the origami to fold the A4 in to 6 perfect folds for her Pmq questions to be written on tomorrow.
Straight for the low hanging fruit - women and young children shipped to Brazil on Secret Flights, back to where the street gangs said they would murder them if they ever saw them again.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2024/dec/01/ella-baron-600-brazilians-deported-uk-secret-flights-cartoon
Have you any idea what happens the other end, She Corn? Frightened Women and children dumped on a tarmac whilst SKS secret extradition flights roar off into distance for the next pay load.
With a small core of supporters in command, and a few seasoned vets, it's not impossible he might have succeeded. Or at least caused a bloody conflict.
We'll probably find out more over the next couple of months, as it seems improbable he stays in office.
One thing I don't think we get is how Korea is still something of a hierarchical culture, in a way that we aren't.
That does cut against the democratic instinct.
We’ve not yet got a battery, but I know plenty of smug MC families bragging about their low or even zero electricity bills.
Give it a few years and this will be widespread. Doesn’t help the buggers living in tenements though
It's more the other way around.
Finally with Reform UK's deputy leader, Richard Tice, we ask about his party colleague James McMurdock.
It's emerged he was jailed when he was 19 for repeatedly kicking his girlfriend, having not disclosed the conviction before he was elected.
'Gone full circle'
Mr Tice defends his colleague, saying: "We are a great Christian nation. Are you seriously saying that if someone makes a bad mistake in life, age 19, that there's no redemption they are doomed as a sinner forever?
"The whole point of Christianity is a sense of - if you've done something wrong, you pay your price. And at the end of that sentence, whatever it is, then, in a sense you've done your bit, you served your punishment."
He goes on to say it is "remarkable" that Mr McMurdock has "gone full circle" and done well in life after his punishment."
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-labour-relaunch-keir-starmer-12593360
I wonder if his economic policies will now bear fruit. With a different foreign policy he might have been a great President.
Are they above the law?
Do they get to choose who our governments are going to be ?
Etc.
Even political journalists already seem to have forgotten the grubbier details of Trump's pardons, for example.
Should they: Of course not and of course not.
My car was in for service and Mercedes courtesy car was an ECQ 250+ at a retail price of £56750
A lovely car and of course high tec, but only max of about 200 miles range which would mean our trip to Lossiemouth would require 3 stops, whereas my previous BMW took me there and back to Perth on one tank of diesel
The other thing I had not experienced was the immediate drop in speed when lifting the foot off the pedal. Mercedes told me this can be adjusted but they have it on maximum to save the battery and the range
Anyway good for fleet drivers and the wealthy but I will stick to my petrol car
https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/07/23/solar-balconies-are-booming-in-germany-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-popular-home-
The cheaper the technology gets (and there's no reason why the price shouldn't fall some more), the more marginal applications become sensible.
For now, at least, it's not solar or wind, both of them can tap decent amounts of energy at a good price.
As I said last week I have the same view re Haigh, her mistake was not fully disclosing her conviction when she joined Cabinet but she can certainly remain an MP. If re elected and Labour stays in power she could even rejoin the Cabinet
https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/what-is-one-pedal-driving-and-how-does-it-work
Sounds like it would take some getting used to.
We could always open the floodgates on immigration if you're so concerned about labour costs.
PC 24%
Lab 23%
Ref 23%
Con 19%
Grn 6%
LD 5%
Oth 1%
And I suspect there isn’t much further price reductions on the batteries
I’d usually say that’s what hanging out with the Spectator does to you but I strongly suspect a pre-existing condition in this case.
https://x.com/flying_rodent/status/1864074860432928922?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
The other feature that I haven't come across was a red warning triangle appeared in the wing mirror as you passed a car or a car was coming past you. I can see that as useful but a bit distracting until you get used to it
This budget needed to raise money to spend, it also needed to offset spending the money raised, and do so by taking spending money from everyone - because it’s patently obvious further inflation on top of already high prices is lurking round the corner, the evidence for this is what the markets think interest rates and mortgage rates will be.
Even next years budgets need to be tax raising and fiscally tight on household spending money too. But will they be? The moment you don’t moan about them like you are, that’s when the real economic problems kick in - because the trick here is bringing back up the eroded incomes at just the right pace so it doesn’t tip over into boom and bust scenario. Softly softly catchee monkey is the phrase.
How many of the next 9 (on basis it’s budgets 2 a year regardless what they are called) won’t be anti growth and job destroying as you call it, fiscally tight as I call it, instead going for growth? There will be too many popular crowd pleasing budgets, especially in 25 and 26 I think, and it will torpedo this administration - not when they fire the torpedo, but when it explodes 24 months later. I feel confident Labour will get it wrong by going for growth and bringing back inflation. The inflation won’t help lifting up incomes, it will greedily eat up the income uplift.
It's not just the batteries.
Range and range anxiety I'm less sure I'll get used to and for anyone thinking of an EV make sure you've got a good wifi/4G signal where you're going to site your charge point. Otherwise if you're using intelligent charging it will stop charging if the connection drops out.
I’d hope we can also get some Badenoch supporters in time.
Some would prefer a right wing or left wing echo chamber. I come here specifically to avoid that, so please let’s hope it continues as is.
I did vote for them for the first time, but I just naturally assumed the very young would do so even more.
Many of the LDs voters now are pensioners and farmers, they will rightly demand Starmer drops them as will every other opposition party or he can forget any confidence and supply deal if he loses his majority