Skip to content

2025 Conservative Party conference and its problem policies – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,726
edited October 11 in General
2025 Conservative Party conference and its problem policies – politicalbetting.com

Kemi Badenoch vows to repeal Climate Change Act – Tory leader says she would replace it with ‘cheap energy’ strategy, ending decades-long consensus on climate.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,555
    The Tories had a conference? Who knew?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,263
    edited October 11
    2nd. No FPT today !

    I think the US comparison question is a good one.

    And I don't currently see a way out of their every-tightening spiral for the Conservatives, since Kemi has put in place measures (eg aiui candidates must pledge support for exiting the ECHR) that will ensure they become more and more stuck in their silo.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,041

    Foxy said:

    Surge in Chagos arrivals prompts row over housing costs
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd721j8390zo

    This is what annoys me about government. There's no joined-up thinking, no forward planning.

    Step 1. Grant Chagossians the right to British citizenship.
    Step 2. Trigger migration by handing Chagos to Mauritius.
    Step 3. Get taken completely by surprise when they show up at Heathrow.

    Good morning, everyone.

    Worth mentioning, yet again, that step 2 is insane.
    It mentioned in the article that the UK original “bought” Chagos from Mauritius.

    So we paid for it and now we are paying compensation for having it?
    We didn't buy the Chagos from Mauritius. We detached them before Mauritius gained independence and deported the Chaggosians to Mauritius.
    Deploying facts to discount a PB faithful narrative will never catch on. I suspect you will have posters pushing back with whataboutery before you know it.
    You may have noticed the “question mark” and the end of my original post?

    It’s used to indicate that someone is unsure of something and asking for clarification.

    We now have two conflicting sources: @Foxy and the BBC.

    But you go with whatever makes you feel better about yourself.
    Thanks, I will. No point breaking the habit of a lifetime.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,592
    DavidL said:

    The Tories had a conference? Who knew?

    Clarkson was very ebullient about the Tory conference in his Sun column this morning - he was impressed with Stride’s speech despite bemoaning that not many people will have heard it.

    Clarkson wrote that Farage’s numbers don’t add up and when pressed he runs away and shouts about small boats, Starmer is stupid and has no idea about the economy but the Tories might have the answers if serious about making Britain a good place to start business.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,041
    I have been surprised how little traction Jenrick's tack to the fat right gained. Badenoch's best Conference speech since Johnson's last Conference speech seemed to take the wind out of his sails.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,095

    I have been surprised how little traction Jenrick's tack to the fat right gained. Badenoch's best Conference speech since Johnson's last Conference speech seemed to take the wind out of his sails.

    I like the concept of the fat right. By contrast the thin right sounds much healthier. Nice typo!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,555
    boulay said:

    DavidL said:

    The Tories had a conference? Who knew?

    Clarkson was very ebullient about the Tory conference in his Sun column this morning - he was impressed with Stride’s speech despite bemoaning that not many people will have heard it.

    Clarkson wrote that Farage’s numbers don’t add up and when pressed he runs away and shouts about small boats, Starmer is stupid and has no idea about the economy but the Tories might have the answers if serious about making Britain a good place to start business.
    Stride's speech was terrible in my view. But then I am a fiscal hawk. I get that there is only so much truth that can actually be said at any one time.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,846
    edited October 11
    AnneJGP said:

    MattW said:

    AnneJGP said:

    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JD Vance calls Canterbury Cathedral exhibit 'ugly'
    ...
    Mr Vance said: "It is weird to me that these people don't see the irony of honoring 'marginalized communities' by making a beautiful historical building really ugly."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly64e0v34jo

    Trendy vicar.

    He is actually right though, it looks absolutely hideous. Shockingly inappropriate and utterly without any feeling for the building.

    I mean, I don't know that somebody who has a face like a smacked arse and the soul of a Mafia Don is in a position to lecture. But he does, for once, have a point.
    JD Vance sounds quite like Mr Bufton-Tufton mowing his lawn in Tunbridge Wells on a Saturday afternoon, harrumphing in time to the Flymo. But I don't think he likes his Christianity escaping from the small box where he keeps it, and asking him awkward questions; we've seen that before with him. (Side note: that's a human characteristic, we all do it, and we all need challenging sometimes.)

    I think it's a fascinating exhibit. I'm in that part of Kent for a few days in December, and I'll go and have a look. A cathedral is a place where it is appropriate to ask questions about God, and cathedrals are - and always have been - buildings for everyone, so I think it's a great idea to poke some assumptions. Some people will huff and puff, and others will have think a bit more deeply.

    It was Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey who famously said "The duty of the church is to comfort the disturbed and to disturb the comfortable", which is hackneyed but a good aphorism.

    We seem quite happy with Sheela-na-gigs, and this is far less provocative than those. I'd frame it far more as a Cathedral doing what cathedrals have always done.
    Is this one of those exhibitions that tours round most cathedrals? Is each instance unique? How do they get the paint/medium off the stone?

    (Addressed to anyone who knows, not to you specifically.)

    I wonder how they'd feel if some unauthorised artist plastered graffiti on the outside walls!
    The cathedral's page about it is here, but does not explain afaics:
    https://www.canterbury-cathedral.org/news/posts/delight-and-displeasure-art-installation-s-questions-to-god-divide-public-opinion/

    I'd guess that it will be some peelable surface - which could be paint on or stick on.

    I have used paint-on protection to pre-protect walls against graffiti (so you can just hose it all off and repaint to protect for next time), or once to waterproof a shower set against a stone house wall.
    Amuses me that the link shows the explanation about the exhibition directly underneath their welcome to Sarah Mullaly, rather giving the impression that the exhibition is to welcome her.

    Be interesting to hear if the exhibition does go on tour. Some of the exhibitions that tour cathedrals are amazing. I remember one about the moon.
    FPT - I was startled to see in my Aeroplane Monthly that Rochester Cathedral recently put on show a locally made Shorts floatplane, showcasing the plane restoration volunteers' efforts and more generally engineering in the area (evidently from a local historical but also educational perspective with family activities, which usually means stuff for children).

    https://www.rochestercathedral.org/floatplane

    They thereby helped out the plane restorers by giving them a display venue to make their work known. Which is nice.

    More generally a key point about temporary exhibitions is that they will not be there for long. Another point is that they exist to do different things, sometimes experimental. So grumping about them is pointless, especially if it is to do with the Christian message anyway.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,041
    AnneJGP said:

    I have been surprised how little traction Jenrick's tack to the fat right gained. Badenoch's best Conference speech since Johnson's last Conference speech seemed to take the wind out of his sails.

    I like the concept of the fat right. By contrast the thin right sounds much healthier. Nice typo!
    Because of his rigorously gruelling gym and running programmes to get in trim for his forthcoming premiership, the "fat right" is perhaps unfair.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,244

    I have been surprised how little traction Jenrick's tack to the fat right gained. Badenoch's best Conference speech since Johnson's last Conference speech seemed to take the wind out of his sails.

    Are the fat right Hegseth fans?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 47,764
    Carnyx said:

    AnneJGP said:

    MattW said:

    AnneJGP said:

    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JD Vance calls Canterbury Cathedral exhibit 'ugly'
    ...
    Mr Vance said: "It is weird to me that these people don't see the irony of honoring 'marginalized communities' by making a beautiful historical building really ugly."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly64e0v34jo

    Trendy vicar.

    He is actually right though, it looks absolutely hideous. Shockingly inappropriate and utterly without any feeling for the building.

    I mean, I don't know that somebody who has a face like a smacked arse and the soul of a Mafia Don is in a position to lecture. But he does, for once, have a point.
    JD Vance sounds quite like Mr Bufton-Tufton mowing his lawn in Tunbridge Wells on a Saturday afternoon, harrumphing in time to the Flymo. But I don't think he likes his Christianity escaping from the small box where he keeps it, and asking him awkward questions; we've seen that before with him. (Side note: that's a human characteristic, we all do it, and we all need challenging sometimes.)

    I think it's a fascinating exhibit. I'm in that part of Kent for a few days in December, and I'll go and have a look. A cathedral is a place where it is appropriate to ask questions about God, and cathedrals are - and always have been - buildings for everyone, so I think it's a great idea to poke some assumptions. Some people will huff and puff, and others will have think a bit more deeply.

    It was Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey who famously said "The duty of the church is to comfort the disturbed and to disturb the comfortable", which is hackneyed but a good aphorism.

    We seem quite happy with Sheela-na-gigs, and this is far less provocative than those. I'd frame it far more as a Cathedral doing what cathedrals have always done.
    Is this one of those exhibitions that tours round most cathedrals? Is each instance unique? How do they get the paint/medium off the stone?

    (Addressed to anyone who knows, not to you specifically.)

    I wonder how they'd feel if some unauthorised artist plastered graffiti on the outside walls!
    The cathedral's page about it is here, but does not explain afaics:
    https://www.canterbury-cathedral.org/news/posts/delight-and-displeasure-art-installation-s-questions-to-god-divide-public-opinion/

    I'd guess that it will be some peelable surface - which could be paint on or stick on.

    I have used paint-on protection to pre-protect walls against graffiti (so you can just hose it all off and repaint to protect for next time), or once to waterproof a shower set against a stone house wall.
    Amuses me that the link shows the explanation about the exhibition directly underneath their welcome to Sarah Mullaly, rather giving the impression that the exhibition is to welcome her.

    Be interesting to hear if the exhibition does go on tour. Some of the exhibitions that tour cathedrals are amazing. I remember one about the moon.
    FPT - I was startled to see in my Aeroplane Monthly that Rochester Cathedral recently put on show a locally made Shorts floatplane, showcasing the plane restoration volunteers' efforts and more generally engineering in the area (evidently from a local historical but also educational perspective with family activities, which usually means stuff for children).

    https://www.rochestercathedral.org/floatplane

    They thereby helped out the plane restorers by giving them a display venue to make their work known. Which is nice.

    More generally a key point about temporary exhibitions is that they will not be there for long. Another point is that they exist to do different things, sometimes experimental. So grumping about them is pointless, especially if it is to do with the Christian message anyway.
    I have some great photos of my son under the Earth at Ely Cathederal a few years back. I'm unsure what that had to do with the Christian message.

    Likewise, Chester Cathedral has, for the past few years, had a large model railway in it for a few weeks in the summer. Again, this seems more to do with pulling in the punters than it does religion (although the link between vicars and railways are much stronger than just Rev Awdry).

    I'm not a fan of graffiti. But it'll be temporary, and won't have damaged the cathedral's fabric. Sometimes people should just shrug and say "That's not for me".
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,585
    The hard part of achieving Net Zero will be decarbonising domestic heating. Do we go with air source heat pumps, or convert the gas network to hydrogen?

    The former requires most folk to rip out their entire central heating system, and most likely freeze their bits off on the coldest winter days.

    The latter has people shouting "Hindenberg!" and fleeing in terror. (The two proposed 'hydrogen village' projects were cancelled due to opposition from the residents.)

    Unsurprisingly, the decision on what to do is not one that governments wish to take.
  • I find the climate change act very helpful. I’d like to keep it. Without ambition council officers will default to minimal change. And change is required.

    As a long term (honorary) member of the Conservative Climate Network, a pretty solid group imo, I’d be surprised if there’s the internal support Kemi will need to effectively end the commitment.

    It feels performative.

    I’ve a lot of small c conservative voters in my ward. They vote for me in preference to Labour. So this kind of cements my vote. So ta KB.

    I take the environment very seriously, nevertheless this policy announcement doesn’t worry me much.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,041
    boulay said:

    DavidL said:

    The Tories had a conference? Who knew?

    Clarkson was very ebullient about the Tory conference in his Sun column this morning - he was impressed with Stride’s speech despite bemoaning that not many people will have heard it.

    Clarkson wrote that Farage’s numbers don’t add up and when pressed he runs away and shouts about small boats, Starmer is stupid and has no idea about the economy but the Tories might have the answers if serious about making Britain a good place to start business.
    Unfortunately we have an advantage over Clarkson. @slade posts Friday updates on Thursday by elections and the numbers are unfortunately stacking up for Farage.

    Of course Clarkson wearily announced on a May 1997 edition of the original Top Gear that "you have all voted communist", so is he as reliable a non partisan as we are led to believe?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,244

    Carnyx said:

    AnneJGP said:

    MattW said:

    AnneJGP said:

    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JD Vance calls Canterbury Cathedral exhibit 'ugly'
    ...
    Mr Vance said: "It is weird to me that these people don't see the irony of honoring 'marginalized communities' by making a beautiful historical building really ugly."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly64e0v34jo

    Trendy vicar.

    He is actually right though, it looks absolutely hideous. Shockingly inappropriate and utterly without any feeling for the building.

    I mean, I don't know that somebody who has a face like a smacked arse and the soul of a Mafia Don is in a position to lecture. But he does, for once, have a point.
    JD Vance sounds quite like Mr Bufton-Tufton mowing his lawn in Tunbridge Wells on a Saturday afternoon, harrumphing in time to the Flymo. But I don't think he likes his Christianity escaping from the small box where he keeps it, and asking him awkward questions; we've seen that before with him. (Side note: that's a human characteristic, we all do it, and we all need challenging sometimes.)

    I think it's a fascinating exhibit. I'm in that part of Kent for a few days in December, and I'll go and have a look. A cathedral is a place where it is appropriate to ask questions about God, and cathedrals are - and always have been - buildings for everyone, so I think it's a great idea to poke some assumptions. Some people will huff and puff, and others will have think a bit more deeply.

    It was Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey who famously said "The duty of the church is to comfort the disturbed and to disturb the comfortable", which is hackneyed but a good aphorism.

    We seem quite happy with Sheela-na-gigs, and this is far less provocative than those. I'd frame it far more as a Cathedral doing what cathedrals have always done.
    Is this one of those exhibitions that tours round most cathedrals? Is each instance unique? How do they get the paint/medium off the stone?

    (Addressed to anyone who knows, not to you specifically.)

    I wonder how they'd feel if some unauthorised artist plastered graffiti on the outside walls!
    The cathedral's page about it is here, but does not explain afaics:
    https://www.canterbury-cathedral.org/news/posts/delight-and-displeasure-art-installation-s-questions-to-god-divide-public-opinion/

    I'd guess that it will be some peelable surface - which could be paint on or stick on.

    I have used paint-on protection to pre-protect walls against graffiti (so you can just hose it all off and repaint to protect for next time), or once to waterproof a shower set against a stone house wall.
    Amuses me that the link shows the explanation about the exhibition directly underneath their welcome to Sarah Mullaly, rather giving the impression that the exhibition is to welcome her.

    Be interesting to hear if the exhibition does go on tour. Some of the exhibitions that tour cathedrals are amazing. I remember one about the moon.
    FPT - I was startled to see in my Aeroplane Monthly that Rochester Cathedral recently put on show a locally made Shorts floatplane, showcasing the plane restoration volunteers' efforts and more generally engineering in the area (evidently from a local historical but also educational perspective with family activities, which usually means stuff for children).

    https://www.rochestercathedral.org/floatplane

    They thereby helped out the plane restorers by giving them a display venue to make their work known. Which is nice.

    More generally a key point about temporary exhibitions is that they will not be there for long. Another point is that they exist to do different things, sometimes experimental. So grumping about them is pointless, especially if it is to do with the Christian message anyway.
    I have some great photos of my son under the Earth at Ely Cathederal a few years back. I'm unsure what that had to do with the Christian message.

    Likewise, Chester Cathedral has, for the past few years, had a large model railway in it for a few weeks in the summer. Again, this seems more to do with pulling in the punters than it does religion (although the link between vicars and railways are much stronger than just Rev Awdry).

    I'm not a fan of graffiti. But it'll be temporary, and won't have damaged the cathedral's fabric. Sometimes people should just shrug and say "That's not for me".
    It’s about finding ways to connect with people and bring them into a situation where they can hear the Christian message.

    If only a handful of people who come to see the railway exhibition are inspired to ask why people spent so much time and effort building the cathedral and progress from that to faith it will have been worthwhile
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,878
    ...
    boulay said:

    DavidL said:

    The Tories had a conference? Who knew?

    Clarkson was very ebullient about the Tory conference in his Sun column this morning - he was impressed with Stride’s speech despite bemoaning that not many people will have heard it.

    Clarkson wrote that Farage’s numbers don’t add up and when pressed he runs away and shouts about small boats, Starmer is stupid and has no idea about the economy but the Tories might have the answers if serious about making Britain a good place to start business.
    The Tories current offering suits Clarkson and the general ex-Cameronite Times mileu - which is good for them. And also amazing that what is essentially a bunch of wets (as Clarkson is) both in the PCP and outside it, have been won over to a policy of leaving the ECHR. That's an amazing achievement by Kemi.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,041

    I have been surprised how little traction Jenrick's tack to the fat right gained. Badenoch's best Conference speech since Johnson's last Conference speech seemed to take the wind out of his sails.

    Are the fat right Hegseth fans?
    Tangoman is undoubtedly "fat right".
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,486
    edited October 11

    boulay said:

    DavidL said:

    The Tories had a conference? Who knew?

    Clarkson was very ebullient about the Tory conference in his Sun column this morning - he was impressed with Stride’s speech despite bemoaning that not many people will have heard it.

    Clarkson wrote that Farage’s numbers don’t add up and when pressed he runs away and shouts about small boats, Starmer is stupid and has no idea about the economy but the Tories might have the answers if serious about making Britain a good place to start business.
    Unfortunately we have an advantage over Clarkson. @slade posts Friday updates on Thursday by elections and the numbers are unfortunately stacking up for Farage.

    Of course Clarkson wearily announced on a May 1997 edition of the original Top Gear that "you have all voted communist", so is he as reliable a non partisan as we are led to believe?
    I think Clarkson's attitude to politics is similar to his feelings for the mechanical side of his livelihood. He wanks on about carbon fibre this and adjustable that but if he actually encounters hard metal needing to be worked on he gets out a hammer and cold chisel for entertainment value then expects someone else to fix it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,846

    Carnyx said:

    AnneJGP said:

    MattW said:

    AnneJGP said:

    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JD Vance calls Canterbury Cathedral exhibit 'ugly'
    ...
    Mr Vance said: "It is weird to me that these people don't see the irony of honoring 'marginalized communities' by making a beautiful historical building really ugly."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly64e0v34jo

    Trendy vicar.

    He is actually right though, it looks absolutely hideous. Shockingly inappropriate and utterly without any feeling for the building.

    I mean, I don't know that somebody who has a face like a smacked arse and the soul of a Mafia Don is in a position to lecture. But he does, for once, have a point.
    JD Vance sounds quite like Mr Bufton-Tufton mowing his lawn in Tunbridge Wells on a Saturday afternoon, harrumphing in time to the Flymo. But I don't think he likes his Christianity escaping from the small box where he keeps it, and asking him awkward questions; we've seen that before with him. (Side note: that's a human characteristic, we all do it, and we all need challenging sometimes.)

    I think it's a fascinating exhibit. I'm in that part of Kent for a few days in December, and I'll go and have a look. A cathedral is a place where it is appropriate to ask questions about God, and cathedrals are - and always have been - buildings for everyone, so I think it's a great idea to poke some assumptions. Some people will huff and puff, and others will have think a bit more deeply.

    It was Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey who famously said "The duty of the church is to comfort the disturbed and to disturb the comfortable", which is hackneyed but a good aphorism.

    We seem quite happy with Sheela-na-gigs, and this is far less provocative than those. I'd frame it far more as a Cathedral doing what cathedrals have always done.
    Is this one of those exhibitions that tours round most cathedrals? Is each instance unique? How do they get the paint/medium off the stone?

    (Addressed to anyone who knows, not to you specifically.)

    I wonder how they'd feel if some unauthorised artist plastered graffiti on the outside walls!
    The cathedral's page about it is here, but does not explain afaics:
    https://www.canterbury-cathedral.org/news/posts/delight-and-displeasure-art-installation-s-questions-to-god-divide-public-opinion/

    I'd guess that it will be some peelable surface - which could be paint on or stick on.

    I have used paint-on protection to pre-protect walls against graffiti (so you can just hose it all off and repaint to protect for next time), or once to waterproof a shower set against a stone house wall.
    Amuses me that the link shows the explanation about the exhibition directly underneath their welcome to Sarah Mullaly, rather giving the impression that the exhibition is to welcome her.

    Be interesting to hear if the exhibition does go on tour. Some of the exhibitions that tour cathedrals are amazing. I remember one about the moon.
    FPT - I was startled to see in my Aeroplane Monthly that Rochester Cathedral recently put on show a locally made Shorts floatplane, showcasing the plane restoration volunteers' efforts and more generally engineering in the area (evidently from a local historical but also educational perspective with family activities, which usually means stuff for children).

    https://www.rochestercathedral.org/floatplane

    They thereby helped out the plane restorers by giving them a display venue to make their work known. Which is nice.

    More generally a key point about temporary exhibitions is that they will not be there for long. Another point is that they exist to do different things, sometimes experimental. So grumping about them is pointless, especially if it is to do with the Christian message anyway.
    I have some great photos of my son under the Earth at Ely Cathederal a few years back. I'm unsure what that had to do with the Christian message.

    Likewise, Chester Cathedral has, for the past few years, had a large model railway in it for a few weeks in the summer. Again, this seems more to do with pulling in the punters than it does religion (although the link between vicars and railways are much stronger than just Rev Awdry).

    I'm not a fan of graffiti. But it'll be temporary, and won't have damaged the cathedral's fabric. Sometimes people should just shrug and say "That's not for me".
    I didn't see the Earth/Moon stuff, and I should really let the Cathedrals speak for themselves, but for one thing there is a respectable strand of Christian thinking in the form of natural theology - God as seen through his Creation.

    And as for the model railway it's not just Bishop Treacy and his fellow ordained enthusiasts. There is apparently a link at Chester through Brassey the engineer.

    https://cheshireandwarrington.com/latest-news/model-railway-shunts-into-action-at-chester-cathedral/

    Though it may just be that there's nowhere else to display a 72 foot long train set. And it's not so long in geological time sicne cathedrals were pretty much used as multipurpose community halls, much as parish church halls are today ... one wouldn't blink at St Werburgh's Parish Hall being used by the Much Binding in the Marsh Railway Club for their annual day show.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,878

    I find the climate change act very helpful. I’d like to keep it. Without ambition council officers will default to minimal change. And change is required.

    As a long term (honorary) member of the Conservative Climate Network, a pretty solid group imo, I’d be surprised if there’s the internal support Kemi will need to effectively end the commitment.

    It feels performative.

    I’ve a lot of small c conservative voters in my ward. They vote for me in preference to Labour. So this kind of cements my vote. So ta KB.

    I take the environment very seriously, nevertheless this policy announcement doesn’t worry me much.

    It's happening, buckle up ducks.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,629
    Yes, both of these policies are poor as well explained here by Moon Rabbit. I doubt we'll see anything too fantastic out of the Cons until they stop aping Reform. Which they should asap because, despite failing so badly in government for 14 years that almost all the public think Britain is "broken", they are better than that.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,175

    The hard part of achieving Net Zero will be decarbonising domestic heating. Do we go with air source heat pumps, or convert the gas network to hydrogen?

    The former requires most folk to rip out their entire central heating system, and most likely freeze their bits off on the coldest winter days.

    The latter has people shouting "Hindenberg!" and fleeing in terror. (The two proposed 'hydrogen village' projects were cancelled due to opposition from the residents.)

    Unsurprisingly, the decision on what to do is not one that governments wish to take.

    There's also the question of how much hydrogen will leak out of pipes, given how tiny the molecules are. So improving insulation and heat pumps it is.

    And yes, it's going to cost upfront. Tough. Conservatives are meant to believe in the evil of borrowing resources, whether financial or ecological, from future generations. As our most scientifically literate PM said,

    No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy—with a full repairing lease.

    The current Conservative position on the tax/spend/borrow trilemma, and on the environment is "don't stop the party now, let out kids endure the hangover."

    It's been that way for a while, but it simply isn't conservative.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 16,297

    The hard part of achieving Net Zero will be decarbonising domestic heating. Do we go with air source heat pumps, or convert the gas network to hydrogen?

    The former requires most folk to rip out their entire central heating system, and most likely freeze their bits off on the coldest winter days.

    The latter has people shouting "Hindenberg!" and fleeing in terror. (The two proposed 'hydrogen village' projects were cancelled due to opposition from the residents.)

    Unsurprisingly, the decision on what to do is not one that governments wish to take.

    Some decent retro-fitted insulation would be a good start.
  • AnneJGP said:

    I have been surprised how little traction Jenrick's tack to the fat right gained. Badenoch's best Conference speech since Johnson's last Conference speech seemed to take the wind out of his sails.

    I like the concept of the fat right. By contrast the thin right sounds much healthier. Nice typo!
    Because of his rigorously gruelling gym and running programmes to get in trim for his forthcoming premiership, the "fat right" is perhaps unfair.
    Indeed. Yond Jenrick has a lean and hungry look.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,283

    boulay said:

    DavidL said:

    The Tories had a conference? Who knew?

    Clarkson was very ebullient about the Tory conference in his Sun column this morning - he was impressed with Stride’s speech despite bemoaning that not many people will have heard it.

    Clarkson wrote that Farage’s numbers don’t add up and when pressed he runs away and shouts about small boats, Starmer is stupid and has no idea about the economy but the Tories might have the answers if serious about making Britain a good place to start business.
    Unfortunately we have an advantage over Clarkson. @slade posts Friday updates on Thursday by elections and the numbers are unfortunately stacking up for Farage.

    Of course Clarkson wearily announced on a May 1997 edition of the original Top Gear that "you have all voted communist", so is he as reliable a non partisan as we are led to believe?
    Jeremy Clarkson is famously part of the Chipping Norton set along with David Cameron (now Lord Chipping Norton or some such).
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,878
    The rise in sea temperatures is largely due to the banning of sulphur in maritime fuels. This is widely recognised - part of Ed's crazy carbon capture scheme (a part that I support) is 'cloud brightening', to counteract the effects of this fuel change on the skies over the sea.

    @MoonRabbit's attempt to use the rise in sea temperatures to defend Net Zero (which will do absolutely nothing to cool the seas), is fundamentally dishonest - something sadly very common in the Net Zero lobby.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,964

    It is possible to target Net Zero while still seeking to maximise North Sea oil and gas extraction.

    And when you have a government locking in demand for natural gas as part of its decarbonisation strategy, through CCGT and blue hydrogen plants with CO2 capture, there is every incentive to 'drill, baby, drill' rather than import LNG from Qatar.

    I may have mentioned this previously.

    Blue hydrogen is a ludicrously expensive non solution to climate change even more ridiculous than the current CO2 capture plans.

    But otherwise, agreed.
  • It is possible to target Net Zero while still seeking to maximise North Sea oil and gas extraction.

    And when you have a government locking in demand for natural gas as part of its decarbonisation strategy, through CCGT and blue hydrogen plants with CO2 capture, there is every incentive to 'drill, baby, drill' rather than import LNG from Qatar.

    I may have mentioned this previously.

    Yes, "Net Zero" means balancing off emissions from more North Sea fossil with renewables. Its not "get rid of North Sea fossils".

    I am going to be hammering this point hard in my run for Holyrood. The Reform clowns want to protect the NE by importing more gas into England and literally shutting down off-shore wind.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,585
    TimS said:

    The hard part of achieving Net Zero will be decarbonising domestic heating. Do we go with air source heat pumps, or convert the gas network to hydrogen?

    The former requires most folk to rip out their entire central heating system, and most likely freeze their bits off on the coldest winter days.

    The latter has people shouting "Hindenberg!" and fleeing in terror. (The two proposed 'hydrogen village' projects were cancelled due to opposition from the residents.)

    Unsurprisingly, the decision on what to do is not one that governments wish to take.

    Some decent retro-fitted insulation would be a good start.
    Didn't the "army of loft laggers" sort that out years ago?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 16,297

    AnneJGP said:

    I have been surprised how little traction Jenrick's tack to the fat right gained. Badenoch's best Conference speech since Johnson's last Conference speech seemed to take the wind out of his sails.

    I like the concept of the fat right. By contrast the thin right sounds much healthier. Nice typo!
    Because of his rigorously gruelling gym and running programmes to get in trim for his forthcoming premiership, the "fat right" is perhaps unfair.
    Indeed. Yond Jenrick has a lean and hungry look.
    He almost has that intense, stary-eyed sinewy facial leanness that you see in keen cyclists.

    One of the easiest types to spot, the serious MAMIL. Often in senior positions in business. It’s the piercing eyes that give it away.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,964
    edited October 11

    The hard part of achieving Net Zero will be decarbonising domestic heating. Do we go with air source heat pumps, or convert the gas network to hydrogen?

    The former requires most folk to rip out their entire central heating system, and most likely freeze their bits off on the coldest winter days.

    The latter has people shouting "Hindenberg!" and fleeing in terror. (The two proposed 'hydrogen village' projects were cancelled due to opposition from the residents.)

    Unsurprisingly, the decision on what to do is not one that governments wish to take.

    The latter is more stupidly expensive.

    It's very similar to the EV - hydrogen fuel cell car debate from a decade or so back.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,283
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    AnneJGP said:

    MattW said:

    AnneJGP said:

    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JD Vance calls Canterbury Cathedral exhibit 'ugly'
    ...
    Mr Vance said: "It is weird to me that these people don't see the irony of honoring 'marginalized communities' by making a beautiful historical building really ugly."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly64e0v34jo

    Trendy vicar.

    He is actually right though, it looks absolutely hideous. Shockingly inappropriate and utterly without any feeling for the building.

    I mean, I don't know that somebody who has a face like a smacked arse and the soul of a Mafia Don is in a position to lecture. But he does, for once, have a point.
    JD Vance sounds quite like Mr Bufton-Tufton mowing his lawn in Tunbridge Wells on a Saturday afternoon, harrumphing in time to the Flymo. But I don't think he likes his Christianity escaping from the small box where he keeps it, and asking him awkward questions; we've seen that before with him. (Side note: that's a human characteristic, we all do it, and we all need challenging sometimes.)

    I think it's a fascinating exhibit. I'm in that part of Kent for a few days in December, and I'll go and have a look. A cathedral is a place where it is appropriate to ask questions about God, and cathedrals are - and always have been - buildings for everyone, so I think it's a great idea to poke some assumptions. Some people will huff and puff, and others will have think a bit more deeply.

    It was Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey who famously said "The duty of the church is to comfort the disturbed and to disturb the comfortable", which is hackneyed but a good aphorism.

    We seem quite happy with Sheela-na-gigs, and this is far less provocative than those. I'd frame it far more as a Cathedral doing what cathedrals have always done.
    Is this one of those exhibitions that tours round most cathedrals? Is each instance unique? How do they get the paint/medium off the stone?

    (Addressed to anyone who knows, not to you specifically.)

    I wonder how they'd feel if some unauthorised artist plastered graffiti on the outside walls!
    The cathedral's page about it is here, but does not explain afaics:
    https://www.canterbury-cathedral.org/news/posts/delight-and-displeasure-art-installation-s-questions-to-god-divide-public-opinion/

    I'd guess that it will be some peelable surface - which could be paint on or stick on.

    I have used paint-on protection to pre-protect walls against graffiti (so you can just hose it all off and repaint to protect for next time), or once to waterproof a shower set against a stone house wall.
    Amuses me that the link shows the explanation about the exhibition directly underneath their welcome to Sarah Mullaly, rather giving the impression that the exhibition is to welcome her.

    Be interesting to hear if the exhibition does go on tour. Some of the exhibitions that tour cathedrals are amazing. I remember one about the moon.
    FPT - I was startled to see in my Aeroplane Monthly that Rochester Cathedral recently put on show a locally made Shorts floatplane, showcasing the plane restoration volunteers' efforts and more generally engineering in the area (evidently from a local historical but also educational perspective with family activities, which usually means stuff for children).

    https://www.rochestercathedral.org/floatplane

    They thereby helped out the plane restorers by giving them a display venue to make their work known. Which is nice.

    More generally a key point about temporary exhibitions is that they will not be there for long. Another point is that they exist to do different things, sometimes experimental. So grumping about them is pointless, especially if it is to do with the Christian message anyway.
    I have some great photos of my son under the Earth at Ely Cathederal a few years back. I'm unsure what that had to do with the Christian message.

    Likewise, Chester Cathedral has, for the past few years, had a large model railway in it for a few weeks in the summer. Again, this seems more to do with pulling in the punters than it does religion (although the link between vicars and railways are much stronger than just Rev Awdry).

    I'm not a fan of graffiti. But it'll be temporary, and won't have damaged the cathedral's fabric. Sometimes people should just shrug and say "That's not for me".
    I didn't see the Earth/Moon stuff, and I should really let the Cathedrals speak for themselves, but for one thing there is a respectable strand of Christian thinking in the form of natural theology - God as seen through his Creation.

    And as for the model railway it's not just Bishop Treacy and his fellow ordained enthusiasts. There is apparently a link at Chester through Brassey the engineer.

    https://cheshireandwarrington.com/latest-news/model-railway-shunts-into-action-at-chester-cathedral/

    Though it may just be that there's nowhere else to display a 72 foot long train set. And it's not so long in geological time sicne cathedrals were pretty much used as multipurpose community halls, much as parish church halls are today ... one wouldn't blink at St Werburgh's Parish Hall being used by the Much Binding in the Marsh Railway Club for their annual day show.
    PBers will recall that the Dean of Baillie, who rescued the nurse due to be flogged in Kumran and was rewarded with a bishopric, was an authority on steam trains.
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/b4vSxaO7hJQ
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,585

    The hard part of achieving Net Zero will be decarbonising domestic heating. Do we go with air source heat pumps, or convert the gas network to hydrogen?

    The former requires most folk to rip out their entire central heating system, and most likely freeze their bits off on the coldest winter days.

    The latter has people shouting "Hindenberg!" and fleeing in terror. (The two proposed 'hydrogen village' projects were cancelled due to opposition from the residents.)

    Unsurprisingly, the decision on what to do is not one that governments wish to take.

    There's also the question of how much hydrogen will leak out of pipes, given how tiny the molecules are. So improving insulation and heat pumps it is.

    And yes, it's going to cost upfront. Tough. Conservatives are meant to believe in the evil of borrowing resources, whether financial or ecological, from future generations. As our most scientifically literate PM said,

    No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy—with a full repairing lease.

    The current Conservative position on the tax/spend/borrow trilemma, and on the environment is "don't stop the party now, let out kids endure the hangover."

    It's been that way for a while, but it simply isn't conservative.
    Before North Sea Gas, we used to have hydrogen as our domestic gas supply. But it was safer then, as it was blended with carbon monoxide.


    Seriously, modern plastic gas mains should be fine. All the old cast iron stuff is being eliminated.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,041

    It is possible to target Net Zero while still seeking to maximise North Sea oil and gas extraction.

    And when you have a government locking in demand for natural gas as part of its decarbonisation strategy, through CCGT and blue hydrogen plants with CO2 capture, there is every incentive to 'drill, baby, drill' rather than import LNG from Qatar.

    I may have mentioned this previously.

    Yes, "Net Zero" means balancing off emissions from more North Sea fossil with renewables. Its not "get rid of North Sea fossils".

    I am going to be hammering this point hard in my run for Holyrood. The Reform clowns want to protect the NE by importing more gas into England and literally shutting down off-shore wind.
    Isn't Reform shutting down offshore wind technology a diktat from their handlers in the Whitehouse on behalf of Putin?
  • Its a great piece by Moon Rabbit and highlights some big issues the party has. Can I offer up another example? Farming.

    Badenoch made a play of opposing Labour's farm tax - an idiotic tax that is easy to oppose. Farmers have been traditionally Tory voting and Eurosceptic, and Tories rightly believed their vote was in the bag.

    From what Farmers are telling us, that isn't the case any longer. Farmers were promised that the oven-ready Brexit deal would replace EU subsidies with British subsidies. But a few transitory environmental ones aside, the money dried up.

    Local Tories are still assuming Farmers will vote for them, and being given very short shrift by angry Farmers who feel lied to and betrayed.

    For me one of the major problems the Tory party faces is a disconnect with reality. And its the same on policy after policy - thinking x because we think it so our base must think it, without realising the former base now thinks y. Labour have suffered the same delusions in the past, but its really bad now for the Tories.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,041
    edited October 11

    AnneJGP said:

    I have been surprised how little traction Jenrick's tack to the fat right gained. Badenoch's best Conference speech since Johnson's last Conference speech seemed to take the wind out of his sails.

    I like the concept of the fat right. By contrast the thin right sounds much healthier. Nice typo!
    Because of his rigorously gruelling gym and running programmes to get in trim for his forthcoming premiership, the "fat right" is perhaps unfair.
    Indeed. Yond Jenrick has a lean and hungry look.
    Hungry for power?

    But you are right, 5ft5 ( allegedly ) of solid muscle.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,964

    The hard part of achieving Net Zero will be decarbonising domestic heating. Do we go with air source heat pumps, or convert the gas network to hydrogen?

    The former requires most folk to rip out their entire central heating system, and most likely freeze their bits off on the coldest winter days.

    The latter has people shouting "Hindenberg!" and fleeing in terror. (The two proposed 'hydrogen village' projects were cancelled due to opposition from the residents.)

    Unsurprisingly, the decision on what to do is not one that governments wish to take.

    There's also the question of how much hydrogen will leak out of pipes, given how tiny the molecules are. So improving insulation and heat pumps it is.

    And yes, it's going to cost upfront. Tough. Conservatives are meant to believe in the evil of borrowing resources, whether financial or ecological, from future generations. As our most scientifically literate PM said,

    No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy—with a full repairing lease.

    The current Conservative position on the tax/spend/borrow trilemma, and on the environment is "don't stop the party now, let out kids endure the hangover."

    It's been that way for a while, but it simply isn't conservative.
    Before North Sea Gas, we used to have hydrogen as our domestic gas supply. But it was safer then, as it was blended with carbon monoxide.


    Seriously, modern plastic gas mains should be fine. All the old cast iron stuff is being eliminated.
    And what cost per kWh ?
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,890
    The Tories can take some small mercies from their conference: there was only the usual amount of plotting and anyway, since there were so few attending conference this year, their hearts weren't really in it. The party did not self destruct, and Kemi Badenoch surprised a bit on the upside.

    Yet too many Tories conclude that Reform policies are what the Conservatives need to beat Reform. However, as with Brexit itself, these policies are questionable at best and mostly a confused and unworkable mess.

    Science doesn't give a toss about Tory rejection of net zero- carbon pollution will be a reality whether the Tories believe in it or not. Protecting the environment is not some gimmick, it is central to building a sustainable future for the planet. How you do this is open to debate, but the science is unarguable: anthropic climate change is happening now, what are humans going to do about it? The current Tory answer is stupid: scrap meaningful changes and ignore the problem.

    Likewise with immigration, reality doesn't give a stuff about Tory policies. The 14 year car crash created a massive wave of immigration without any consent from the governed. Tories now want to wish it away by destroying civil liberties and using force. not only unworkable, but actively dangerous. Leaving the ECHR is a Trumpian idea that would fail to change anything. Anyway hard line anti-immigration policies look hypocritical and ridiculous in the mouth or a woman who grew up in Nigeria and the US. In the end the conference merely exposed the chaotic strategic thinking at the heart of the party.

    Yet there is a tiny glimmer: the economy. The stamp duty idea hit home because it could actually work as part of addressing the can of worms that is the UK housing market. If the Tories began to talk economics instead of the Reform agenda of social conservatism and borderline authoritarianism, maybe there is a way back. Being a bit libertarian and having a far more free market bottom line might remind people why the Tories could have a purpose.

    The Tories were always two parties: that Tebbit and Rifkind were in the same cabinet is always jarring to me. The Tebbit wing is flirting very hard with Farage, but the party in its current form is not a party of wealth and aspiration any more- losing the Waitrose voters to the Lib Dems is an astonishing defeat. Can the Tories at least start to ask the right questions? No one knows, and if this conference showed anything, it is that they are still megaparsecs from finding a coherent set of answers.

    The fat lady is clearing her throat for the Tories, but they may have one last chance, if they ignore the Alan B'stard wing of Jenrick and his ilk and focus on serious reform of the economy and especially of public administration.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 16,297

    It is possible to target Net Zero while still seeking to maximise North Sea oil and gas extraction.

    And when you have a government locking in demand for natural gas as part of its decarbonisation strategy, through CCGT and blue hydrogen plants with CO2 capture, there is every incentive to 'drill, baby, drill' rather than import LNG from Qatar.

    I may have mentioned this previously.

    Yes, "Net Zero" means balancing off emissions from more North Sea fossil with renewables. Its not "get rid of North Sea fossils".

    I am going to be hammering this point hard in my run for Holyrood. The Reform clowns want to protect the NE by importing more gas into England and literally shutting down off-shore wind.
    Isn't Reform shutting down offshore wind technology a diktat from their handlers in the Whitehouse on behalf of Putin?
    If only it were that sophisticated. It strikes me as more the result of someone spending too much time following MAGA accounts on X.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 12,168
    edited October 11

    The hard part of achieving Net Zero will be decarbonising domestic heating. Do we go with air source heat pumps, or convert the gas network to hydrogen?

    The former requires most folk to rip out their entire central heating system, and most likely freeze their bits off on the coldest winter days.

    The latter has people shouting "Hindenberg!" and fleeing in terror. (The two proposed 'hydrogen village' projects were cancelled due to opposition from the residents.)

    Unsurprisingly, the decision on what to do is not one that governments wish to take.

    I agree - a very simple change would be to decrease taxes on electricity while bumping them up on gas. A progressive policy that will help to accelerate the transition.

    However, I'm very much a low-hanging fruit kind of person so electric vehicles has to be the focus for now - particularly as it mitigates our problem with renewable energy intermittency.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 47,764
    TimS said:

    The rise in sea temperatures is largely due to the banning of sulphur in maritime fuels. This is widely recognised - part of Ed's crazy carbon capture scheme (a part that I support) is 'cloud brightening', to counteract the effects of this fuel change on the skies over the sea.

    @MoonRabbit's attempt to use the rise in sea temperatures to defend Net Zero (which will do absolutely nothing to cool the seas), is fundamentally dishonest - something sadly very common in the Net Zero lobby.

    Talking of fundamentally dishonest, here’s a global SSTA history from the 19th century to now.



    The banning of marine sulphates occurred in 2020. It’s clearly had a very impressive retrospective effect on temperatures since 1900.

    1900-2020 being of course a period during which marine sulphate emissions increased exponentially. Yet still the oceans warmed. Weird, eh! I wonder what on earth might have caused that?
    I don't doubt the trend, but I do have some scepticism about data sets that proclaim accuracy back to the 1850s for this sort of data, especially globally.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 16,297
    TimS said:

    The rise in sea temperatures is largely due to the banning of sulphur in maritime fuels. This is widely recognised - part of Ed's crazy carbon capture scheme (a part that I support) is 'cloud brightening', to counteract the effects of this fuel change on the skies over the sea.

    @MoonRabbit's attempt to use the rise in sea temperatures to defend Net Zero (which will do absolutely nothing to cool the seas), is fundamentally dishonest - something sadly very common in the Net Zero lobby.

    Talking of fundamentally dishonest, here’s a global SSTA history from the 19th century to now.



    The banning of marine sulphates occurred in 2020. It’s clearly had a very impressive retrospective effect on temperatures since 1900.

    1900-2020 being of course a period during which marine sulphate emissions increased exponentially. Yet still the oceans warmed. Weird, eh! I wonder what on earth might have caused that?
    Of course the sea surface is more sensitive to short term variations than the deep ocean. What does that show? If only I could post more than one image per day.

    But for those interested, the graph from the mid 1950s to present is here:

    https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/climate-data-records/global-ocean-heat-content

    2020 is on the right of the time series.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 68,405
    Morning all,

    My factoid of the day:

    Nottinghamshire County Council has spent an additional £25m on adult social care this year just to meet the increase in the national living wage and increase employers’ NICs.

    Combined with children’s social services, care makes up 75pc of Nottinghamshire County Council’s annual spending.

    Telegraph

    The other councils are all similar says article.
  • TimS said:

    It is possible to target Net Zero while still seeking to maximise North Sea oil and gas extraction.

    And when you have a government locking in demand for natural gas as part of its decarbonisation strategy, through CCGT and blue hydrogen plants with CO2 capture, there is every incentive to 'drill, baby, drill' rather than import LNG from Qatar.

    I may have mentioned this previously.

    Yes, "Net Zero" means balancing off emissions from more North Sea fossil with renewables. Its not "get rid of North Sea fossils".

    I am going to be hammering this point hard in my run for Holyrood. The Reform clowns want to protect the NE by importing more gas into England and literally shutting down off-shore wind.
    Isn't Reform shutting down offshore wind technology a diktat from their handlers in the Whitehouse on behalf of Putin?
    If only it were that sophisticated. It strikes me as more the result of someone spending too much time following MAGA accounts on X.
    I had NE reform activists explain the policy to me. They showed me websites showing how much money was being paid to switch off turbines due to the grid not being up to transmitting it. "SEE" they said, "ITS A SCAM". Their solution was more gas and more nuclear.

    OK, but we don't have gas - we import half the gas we need to generate a quarter of our power. "The North Sea is full of it". Well no, not at viable prices, hence imports. "Well nuclear - SMRs". OK thats a deacde away and needs foreign investment, what do you do tomorrow?

    At which point they showed me the website showing how much money was being spent - "we can stop spending this tomorrow". Sign.

    People are sick of being in a circus, but seem to think that voting for a different set of clowns will change things.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,964
    TimS said:

    It is possible to target Net Zero while still seeking to maximise North Sea oil and gas extraction.

    And when you have a government locking in demand for natural gas as part of its decarbonisation strategy, through CCGT and blue hydrogen plants with CO2 capture, there is every incentive to 'drill, baby, drill' rather than import LNG from Qatar.

    I may have mentioned this previously.

    Yes, "Net Zero" means balancing off emissions from more North Sea fossil with renewables. Its not "get rid of North Sea fossils".

    I am going to be hammering this point hard in my run for Holyrood. The Reform clowns want to protect the NE by importing more gas into England and literally shutting down off-shore wind.
    Isn't Reform shutting down offshore wind technology a diktat from their handlers in the Whitehouse on behalf of Putin?
    If only it were that sophisticated. It strikes me as more the result of someone spending too much time following MAGA accounts on X.
    Doug Burgum shuttering the Danish wind farm development when it was 90% complete was pretty crazy.
    But while I can understand that US energy policy is now determined by whatever whim takes hold of Trump, I can't really get my head around Farage deciding it's something to ape.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 16,297
    edited October 11

    TimS said:

    The rise in sea temperatures is largely due to the banning of sulphur in maritime fuels. This is widely recognised - part of Ed's crazy carbon capture scheme (a part that I support) is 'cloud brightening', to counteract the effects of this fuel change on the skies over the sea.

    @MoonRabbit's attempt to use the rise in sea temperatures to defend Net Zero (which will do absolutely nothing to cool the seas), is fundamentally dishonest - something sadly very common in the Net Zero lobby.

    Talking of fundamentally dishonest, here’s a global SSTA history from the 19th century to now.



    The banning of marine sulphates occurred in 2020. It’s clearly had a very impressive retrospective effect on temperatures since 1900.

    1900-2020 being of course a period during which marine sulphate emissions increased exponentially. Yet still the oceans warmed. Weird, eh! I wonder what on earth might have caused that?
    I don't doubt the trend, but I do have some scepticism about data sets that proclaim accuracy back to the 1850s for this sort of data, especially globally.
    You can see the joins in the time series (and there are multiple time series shown in the graph, from different sources). From the 80s we’ve had highly accurate satellite data. Before then it’s a splicing of physical readings. The time series from the 80s shows if anything an even more monotonic rise. Impressive work for a regulation implemented in 2020.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,890
    edited October 11

    It is possible to target Net Zero while still seeking to maximise North Sea oil and gas extraction.

    And when you have a government locking in demand for natural gas as part of its decarbonisation strategy, through CCGT and blue hydrogen plants with CO2 capture, there is every incentive to 'drill, baby, drill' rather than import LNG from Qatar.

    I may have mentioned this previously.

    Yes, "Net Zero" means balancing off emissions from more North Sea fossil with renewables. Its not "get rid of North Sea fossils".

    I am going to be hammering this point hard in my run for Holyrood. The Reform clowns want to protect the NE by importing more gas into England and literally shutting down off-shore wind.
    Absolutely! The North Sea is also a potential place for carbon capture and storage, and for that alone the fields should be maintained. It is crazy to use Qatari or Turkmen gas, when we have the stuff on our own doorstep.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 12,168

    It is possible to target Net Zero while still seeking to maximise North Sea oil and gas extraction.

    And when you have a government locking in demand for natural gas as part of its decarbonisation strategy, through CCGT and blue hydrogen plants with CO2 capture, there is every incentive to 'drill, baby, drill' rather than import LNG from Qatar.

    I may have mentioned this previously.

    Yes, "Net Zero" means balancing off emissions from more North Sea fossil with renewables. Its not "get rid of North Sea fossils".

    I am going to be hammering this point hard in my run for Holyrood. The Reform clowns want to protect the NE by importing more gas into England and literally shutting down off-shore wind.
    In some respects - it is. Part of the reason why getting oil and gas out of the North Sea is getting more expensive is because a lot of the ships, infrastructure and workforce are tied up in offshore wind. It's made the costs increase as there is more competition.

    That's why I think a lot of this debate is a bit contrived, a bit culture war. Increasing gas production from the North Sea is not going to make a material difference to gas imports, and extracting it is not always economical. If we take Badenoch seriously when she says she wants to produce at 100% then we should ask how much that will cost in subsidies.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,964

    a

    The hard part of achieving Net Zero will be decarbonising domestic heating. Do we go with air source heat pumps, or convert the gas network to hydrogen?

    The former requires most folk to rip out their entire central heating system, and most likely freeze their bits off on the coldest winter days.

    The latter has people shouting "Hindenberg!" and fleeing in terror. (The two proposed 'hydrogen village' projects were cancelled due to opposition from the residents.)

    Unsurprisingly, the decision on what to do is not one that governments wish to take.

    There's also the question of how much hydrogen will leak out of pipes, given how tiny the molecules are. So improving insulation and heat pumps it is.

    And yes, it's going to cost upfront. Tough. Conservatives are meant to believe in the evil of borrowing resources, whether financial or ecological, from future generations. As our most scientifically literate PM said,

    No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy—with a full repairing lease.

    The current Conservative position on the tax/spend/borrow trilemma, and on the environment is "don't stop the party now, let out kids endure the hangover."

    It's been that way for a while, but it simply isn't conservative.
    Before North Sea Gas, we used to have hydrogen as our domestic gas supply. But it was safer then, as it was blended with carbon monoxide.


    Seriously, modern plastic gas mains should be fine. All the old cast iron stuff is being eliminated.
    Modern plastic gas mains won’t be fine. Hydrogen leaks through joints that are natural gas tight. It leaks because it is the smaller molecule.

    The safety and handling rules for hydrogen are written in blood. And a part of that is certifying joints and materials.

    And before anyone starts, they are an example of rules and process that work - because they are quite simple and clear. And are about keeping the hydrogen contained, rather than bullshitting administrators.

    And no, the methods they use for certifying joints on new gas mains don’t meet the requirements for hydrogen.

    Hydrogen is perfectly safe (like natural gas and petrol). As long as you remember how fucking dangerous it is.
    I tend to agree, but irrespective of that, the economics just don't add up.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,484
    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    The rise in sea temperatures is largely due to the banning of sulphur in maritime fuels. This is widely recognised - part of Ed's crazy carbon capture scheme (a part that I support) is 'cloud brightening', to counteract the effects of this fuel change on the skies over the sea.

    @MoonRabbit's attempt to use the rise in sea temperatures to defend Net Zero (which will do absolutely nothing to cool the seas), is fundamentally dishonest - something sadly very common in the Net Zero lobby.

    Talking of fundamentally dishonest, here’s a global SSTA history from the 19th century to now.



    The banning of marine sulphates occurred in 2020. It’s clearly had a very impressive retrospective effect on temperatures since 1900.

    1900-2020 being of course a period during which marine sulphate emissions increased exponentially. Yet still the oceans warmed. Weird, eh! I wonder what on earth might have caused that?
    I don't doubt the trend, but I do have some scepticism about data sets that proclaim accuracy back to the 1850s for this sort of data, especially globally.
    You can see the joins in the time series. From the 80s we’ve had highly accurate satellite data. Before then it’s a splicing of physical readings. The time series from the 80s shows if anything an even more monotonic rise. Impressive work for a regulation implemented in 2020.
    The answer is obvious.

    Marine sulphate emissions included large quantities of Thiotimoline.

    The predictable effects are described in "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline", ASF, 1948
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,041
    edited October 11

    Its a great piece by Moon Rabbit and highlights some big issues the party has. Can I offer up another example? Farming.

    Badenoch made a play of opposing Labour's farm tax - an idiotic tax that is easy to oppose. Farmers have been traditionally Tory voting and Eurosceptic, and Tories rightly believed their vote was in the bag.

    From what Farmers are telling us, that isn't the case any longer. Farmers were promised that the oven-ready Brexit deal would replace EU subsidies with British subsidies. But a few transitory environmental ones aside, the money dried up.

    Local Tories are still assuming Farmers will vote for them, and being given very short shrift by angry Farmers who feel lied to and betrayed.

    For me one of the major problems the Tory party faces is a disconnect with reality. And its the same on policy after policy - thinking x because we think it so our base must think it, without realising the former base now thinks y. Labour have suffered the same delusions in the past, but its really bad now for the Tories.

    The Tories biggest tax and spend policy is primarily that they are offering welcome tax cuts without offsetting these with unwelcome tax rises.

    The offset is instead one of "we are going to sack a million wasteful civil servants" and that sounds great on paper but that means things like fewer police means greater crime. There is always a trade off.

    I was in the Bridgend Council depot which is now essentially a Portakabin. Ten years ago it was a huge 1930s built series of two commercial vehicle workshops with offices, both now razed to the ground. So vehicle maintenance is farmed out to the commercial sector and the cost per unit repair is probably a lot more expensive but the cost overhead has been lost, so a win on paper. So what of all those office staff running road gangs for hedge and verge management, pot hole repair and litter picking. Well the big stuff is farmed out to contractors whilst your hedges, verges, potholes an litter are just not trimmed, filled or picked anymore.

    My biggest criticism of 21st century Tories (and Reformers) is they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 47,764
    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    The rise in sea temperatures is largely due to the banning of sulphur in maritime fuels. This is widely recognised - part of Ed's crazy carbon capture scheme (a part that I support) is 'cloud brightening', to counteract the effects of this fuel change on the skies over the sea.

    @MoonRabbit's attempt to use the rise in sea temperatures to defend Net Zero (which will do absolutely nothing to cool the seas), is fundamentally dishonest - something sadly very common in the Net Zero lobby.

    Talking of fundamentally dishonest, here’s a global SSTA history from the 19th century to now.



    The banning of marine sulphates occurred in 2020. It’s clearly had a very impressive retrospective effect on temperatures since 1900.

    1900-2020 being of course a period during which marine sulphate emissions increased exponentially. Yet still the oceans warmed. Weird, eh! I wonder what on earth might have caused that?
    I don't doubt the trend, but I do have some scepticism about data sets that proclaim accuracy back to the 1850s for this sort of data, especially globally.
    You can see the joins in the time series (and there are multiple time series shown in the graph, from different sources). From the 80s we’ve had highly accurate satellite data. Before then it’s a splicing of physical readings. The time series from the 80s shows if anything an even more monotonic rise. Impressive work for a regulation implemented in 2020.
    Oh yes, I don't doubt that more modern readings are more accurate and precise. I just doubt that you can really say that readings globally from (say) 1850 to 1900 can be treated with the same certainty wrt precision.

    Basically: there should be relatively humongous error bars on the early data.
  • fitalass said:

    DavidL said:

    The Tories had a conference? Who knew?

    I did, and I bothered to follow it. Especially with us both coming from areas of Scotland that have been devastated by poor SNP governance for years and now Labour policies that have really affected our areas too?! I am sorry, but that kind of cheap dig really gets me when I think of the fact that the only real effective opposition to the SNP & SGreens has been the Scottish Conservatives!! Thank god for Scottish Conservatives and the last Conservative government at Westminster when it came to protecting women's rights. And also after just a few days ago when Douglas Ross's Right to Recovery bill all about promoting wider drug rehabilatation was voted down by the SNP and SGreens in Holyrood and in the country with the biggest drug deaths, particularly in Dundee!

    Also coming from the North East of Scotland, I remain really angry at the impact of the SNP, SGreens and now the Labour Government at Westminster's devasting impact on the North Sea Gas and Oil Industry here. So your flippant lads together comment really jarred with someone else who actually lives in the North East of Scotland right now! I am fed up watching the only Opposition party in Scotland knocking its head against a brick wall and getting dismissed in this way by a long time dismissive snobbish group on here! When I arrived on this site twenty years ago, I was out loud and a proud female Scottish Conservative and I remain so thanks to their bloody hard work protecting my rights as a biological woman here in Scotland!!

    So Kemi, you go girl!
    Morning! I encountered a very loyal Andrew Bowie voter in Banchory, because the "Tories protect my industry". We discussed the large numbers of job losses and the huge Tory flip flops on energy and Net Zero. He was resolute.

    Point is, the Tories can hardly claim to have been stalwart defenders of an industry they have run down. And not just energy, as I pointed out earlier the local farmers are fuming at both their treatment by the party and by the rank arrogance of Bowie et al assuming their vote remains secure...
  • kjhkjh Posts: 13,239

    The rise in sea temperatures is largely due to the banning of sulphur in maritime fuels. This is widely recognised - part of Ed's crazy carbon capture scheme (a part that I support) is 'cloud brightening', to counteract the effects of this fuel change on the skies over the sea.

    @MoonRabbit's attempt to use the rise in sea temperatures to defend Net Zero (which will do absolutely nothing to cool the seas), is fundamentally dishonest - something sadly very common in the Net Zero lobby.

    Of course it is and the whole CO2 stuff is some global conspiracy, for whatever reason, by the Illuminati lizards who run the world.
  • Eabhal said:

    It is possible to target Net Zero while still seeking to maximise North Sea oil and gas extraction.

    And when you have a government locking in demand for natural gas as part of its decarbonisation strategy, through CCGT and blue hydrogen plants with CO2 capture, there is every incentive to 'drill, baby, drill' rather than import LNG from Qatar.

    I may have mentioned this previously.

    Yes, "Net Zero" means balancing off emissions from more North Sea fossil with renewables. Its not "get rid of North Sea fossils".

    I am going to be hammering this point hard in my run for Holyrood. The Reform clowns want to protect the NE by importing more gas into England and literally shutting down off-shore wind.
    In some respects - it is. Part of the reason why getting oil and gas out of the North Sea is getting more expensive is because a lot of the ships, infrastructure and workforce are tied up in offshore wind. It's made the costs increase as there is more competition.

    That's why I think a lot of this debate is a bit contrived, a bit culture war. Increasing gas production from the North Sea is not going to make a material difference to gas imports, and extracting it is not always economical. If we take Badenoch seriously when she says she wants to produce at 100% then we should ask how much that will cost in subsidies.
    Yeah, "drill baby drill" has sent a shiver through the industry. They are asking for political stability, not endless pogoing between extreme positions...
  • the IHT farm tax rise was neither fish nor foul.

    If I was a farm family 20% IHT would be very annoying.
    But could 50% work better?

    Land is expensive because it carries tax advantages.

    If my core skill is to extract the profit from managing land effectively for the long term, I’d probably prefer to get my land cheapish.
  • eekeek Posts: 31,489
    edited October 11

    Its a great piece by Moon Rabbit and highlights some big issues the party has. Can I offer up another example? Farming.

    Badenoch made a play of opposing Labour's farm tax - an idiotic tax that is easy to oppose. Farmers have been traditionally Tory voting and Eurosceptic, and Tories rightly believed their vote was in the bag.

    From what Farmers are telling us, that isn't the case any longer. Farmers were promised that the oven-ready Brexit deal would replace EU subsidies with British subsidies. But a few transitory environmental ones aside, the money dried up.

    Local Tories are still assuming Farmers will vote for them, and being given very short shrift by angry Farmers who feel lied to and betrayed.

    For me one of the major problems the Tory party faces is a disconnect with reality. And its the same on policy after policy - thinking x because we think it so our base must think it, without realising the former base now thinks y. Labour have suffered the same delusions in the past, but its really bad now for the Tories.

    The Tories biggest tax and spend policy is primarily that they are offering welcome tax cuts without offsetting these with unwelcome tax rises.

    The offset is instead one of "we are going to sack a million wasteful civil servants" and that sounds great on paper but that means things like fewer police means greater crime. There is always a trade off.

    I was in the Bridgend Council depot which is now essentially a Portakabin. Ten years ago it was a huge 1930s built series of two commercial vehicle workshops with offices, both now razed to the ground. So vehicle maintenance is farmed out to the commercial sector and the cost per unit repair is probably a lot more expensive but the cost overhead has been lost, so a win on paper. So what of all those office staff running road gangs for hedge and verge management, pot hole repair and litter picking. Well the big stuff is farmed out to contractors whilst your hedges, verges, potholes an litter are just not trimmed, filled or picked anymore.

    My biggest criticism of 21st century Tories (and Reformers) is they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
    The offset isn't real - if you are going to make people redundant you need to explicitly say what government functions are going to be reduced or binned off.

    Because there are often obvious consequences that the last Tory Government was too thick to understand.

    Reduce the number of people processing asylum claims
    those awaiting their claim to be processed take longer to be processed
    which means they need to be housed for longer

    which means you need to house more people than you have space for so suddenly that little staff saving results in £10bn being spent to hire run down hotels.
  • TimS said:

    TimS said:

    The rise in sea temperatures is largely due to the banning of sulphur in maritime fuels. This is widely recognised - part of Ed's crazy carbon capture scheme (a part that I support) is 'cloud brightening', to counteract the effects of this fuel change on the skies over the sea.

    @MoonRabbit's attempt to use the rise in sea temperatures to defend Net Zero (which will do absolutely nothing to cool the seas), is fundamentally dishonest - something sadly very common in the Net Zero lobby.

    Talking of fundamentally dishonest, here’s a global SSTA history from the 19th century to now.



    The banning of marine sulphates occurred in 2020. It’s clearly had a very impressive retrospective effect on temperatures since 1900.

    1900-2020 being of course a period during which marine sulphate emissions increased exponentially. Yet still the oceans warmed. Weird, eh! I wonder what on earth might have caused that?
    I don't doubt the trend, but I do have some scepticism about data sets that proclaim accuracy back to the 1850s for this sort of data, especially globally.
    You can see the joins in the time series (and there are multiple time series shown in the graph, from different sources). From the 80s we’ve had highly accurate satellite data. Before then it’s a splicing of physical readings. The time series from the 80s shows if anything an even more monotonic rise. Impressive work for a regulation implemented in 2020.
    Oh yes, I don't doubt that more modern readings are more accurate and precise. I just doubt that you can really say that readings globally from (say) 1850 to 1900 can be treated with the same certainty wrt precision.

    Basically: there should be relatively humongous error bars on the early data.
    Literally nobody thinks you can treat historical readings with the same certainty as modern readings. In fact, a huge amount of past climate reconstruction work consists of working out how to compensate for biases and inaccuracies in old temperature data, and the more detailed graphs in the published literature have error bars that reflect these uncertainties.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,346
    Cicero said:

    The Tories can take some small mercies from their conference: there was only the usual amount of plotting and anyway, since there were so few attending conference this year, their hearts weren't really in it. The party did not self destruct, and Kemi Badenoch surprised a bit on the upside.

    Yet too many Tories conclude that Reform policies are what the Conservatives need to beat Reform. However, as with Brexit itself, these policies are questionable at best and mostly a confused and unworkable mess.

    Science doesn't give a toss about Tory rejection of net zero- carbon pollution will be a reality whether the Tories believe in it or not. Protecting the environment is not some gimmick, it is central to building a sustainable future for the planet. How you do this is open to debate, but the science is unarguable: anthropic climate change is happening now, what are humans going to do about it? The current Tory answer is stupid: scrap meaningful changes and ignore the problem.

    Likewise with immigration, reality doesn't give a stuff about Tory policies. The 14 year car crash created a massive wave of immigration without any consent from the governed. Tories now want to wish it away by destroying civil liberties and using force. not only unworkable, but actively dangerous. Leaving the ECHR is a Trumpian idea that would fail to change anything. Anyway hard line anti-immigration policies look hypocritical and ridiculous in the mouth or a woman who grew up in Nigeria and the US. In the end the conference merely exposed the chaotic strategic thinking at the heart of the party.

    Yet there is a tiny glimmer: the economy. The stamp duty idea hit home because it could actually work as part of addressing the can of worms that is the UK housing market. If the Tories began to talk economics instead of the Reform agenda of social conservatism and borderline authoritarianism, maybe there is a way back. Being a bit libertarian and having a far more free market bottom line might remind people why the Tories could have a purpose.

    The Tories were always two parties: that Tebbit and Rifkind were in the same cabinet is always jarring to me. The Tebbit wing is flirting very hard with Farage, but the party in its current form is not a party of wealth and aspiration any more- losing the Waitrose voters to the Lib Dems is an astonishing defeat. Can the Tories at least start to ask the right questions? No one knows, and if this conference showed anything, it is that they are still megaparsecs from finding a coherent set of answers.

    The fat lady is clearing her throat for the Tories, but they may have one last chance, if they ignore the Alan B'stard wing of Jenrick and his ilk and focus on serious reform of the economy and especially of public administration.

    Aspiration is not only for the wealthy unaffected by, or even benefitting from, upward pressure on house prices and downward pressure on wages.

    Its also for those born with less privilege for whom endless immigration and ever higher energy costs severely restrict their life opportunities.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,598

    fitalass said:

    DavidL said:

    The Tories had a conference? Who knew?

    I did, and I bothered to follow it. Especially with us both coming from areas of Scotland that have been devastated by poor SNP governance for years and now Labour policies that have really affected our areas too?! I am sorry, but that kind of cheap dig really gets me when I think of the fact that the only real effective opposition to the SNP & SGreens has been the Scottish Conservatives!! Thank god for Scottish Conservatives and the last Conservative government at Westminster when it came to protecting women's rights. And also after just a few days ago when Douglas Ross's Right to Recovery bill all about promoting wider drug rehabilatation was voted down by the SNP and SGreens in Holyrood and in the country with the biggest drug deaths, particularly in Dundee!

    Also coming from the North East of Scotland, I remain really angry at the impact of the SNP, SGreens and now the Labour Government at Westminster's devasting impact on the North Sea Gas and Oil Industry here. So your flippant lads together comment really jarred with someone else who actually lives in the North East of Scotland right now! I am fed up watching the only Opposition party in Scotland knocking its head against a brick wall and getting dismissed in this way by a long time dismissive snobbish group on here! When I arrived on this site twenty years ago, I was out loud and a proud female Scottish Conservative and I remain so thanks to their bloody hard work protecting my rights as a biological woman here in Scotland!!

    So Kemi, you go girl!
    Morning! I encountered a very loyal Andrew Bowie voter in Banchory, because the "Tories protect my industry". We discussed the large numbers of job losses and the huge Tory flip flops on energy and Net Zero. He was resolute.

    Point is, the Tories can hardly claim to have been stalwart defenders of an industry they have run down. And not just energy, as I pointed out earlier the local farmers are fuming at both their treatment by the party and by the rank arrogance of Bowie et al assuming their vote remains secure...
    Your weakness on these policy issues in the North East of Scotland is showing, I have unlike you lived in the North East of Scotland and have been married to someone who has worked in the Oil and Gas industry here for 40 years, also now spent 20 years living in a rural area where many of our friends are farmers. There is a good reason why Andrew Bowie held onto his seat at the last GE and the fact he knows his constiuency both rural and industrial in Aberdeenshire and in Aberdeen helped a lot. So don't knock a bloody good local MP what ever his party colours!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,369
    Sean_F said:

    As @Richard_Tyndall has explained, one effect of the Climate Change Act is that, instead of drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea, we import it instead. That is perverse.

    The problem is it makes dogma law and law wins over economics.

    We will follow a path of decarbonisation over the coming decades anyway, but it needs to be a technologically realistic and economically sustainable one or else we'll pointlessly cripple ourselves - and then won't be able to afford investmentsnin new technology.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,369

    Sean_F said:

    As @Richard_Tyndall has explained, one effect of the Climate Change Act is that, instead of drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea, we import it instead. That is perverse.

    Not at all, the legislation's working exactly as intended.

    May got to feel self-righteous. The current Government gets to feel self-righteous. We outsource the pollution, and the profits.

    It's entirely against the national interest, of course, but that's not the purpose of the legislation.

    It's almost the legislative equivalent of when someone buys you a birthday present, only they've given a donation to charity instead and just add your name to it with a tag of: "Your gift is a donated school desk to a third world child". With the potentially dubious charity taking a nice fat cut.
    You need to instantly remove such "friends" from your life.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,175
    edited October 11

    fitalass said:

    DavidL said:

    The Tories had a conference? Who knew?

    I did, and I bothered to follow it. Especially with us both coming from areas of Scotland that have been devastated by poor SNP governance for years and now Labour policies that have really affected our areas too?! I am sorry, but that kind of cheap dig really gets me when I think of the fact that the only real effective opposition to the SNP & SGreens has been the Scottish Conservatives!! Thank god for Scottish Conservatives and the last Conservative government at Westminster when it came to protecting women's rights. And also after just a few days ago when Douglas Ross's Right to Recovery bill all about promoting wider drug rehabilatation was voted down by the SNP and SGreens in Holyrood and in the country with the biggest drug deaths, particularly in Dundee!

    Also coming from the North East of Scotland, I remain really angry at the impact of the SNP, SGreens and now the Labour Government at Westminster's devasting impact on the North Sea Gas and Oil Industry here. So your flippant lads together comment really jarred with someone else who actually lives in the North East of Scotland right now! I am fed up watching the only Opposition party in Scotland knocking its head against a brick wall and getting dismissed in this way by a long time dismissive snobbish group on here! When I arrived on this site twenty years ago, I was out loud and a proud female Scottish Conservative and I remain so thanks to their bloody hard work protecting my rights as a biological woman here in Scotland!!

    So Kemi, you go girl!
    Morning! I encountered a very loyal Andrew Bowie voter in Banchory, because the "Tories protect my industry". We discussed the large numbers of job losses and the huge Tory flip flops on energy and Net Zero. He was resolute.

    Point is, the Tories can hardly claim to have been stalwart defenders of an industry they have run down. And not just energy, as I pointed out earlier the local farmers are fuming at both their treatment by the party and by the rank arrogance of Bowie et al assuming their vote remains secure...
    There is another problem for the North Sea hydrocarbon industry. It's been declining for a while now, simply because it's a finite resource where the easy to get oil and gas have already been extracted.



    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-61437156.amp

    Whatever we're haggling over is pretty marginal. Politics is not going to conjure up huge amounts of oil and gas.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,964

    the IHT farm tax rise was neither fish nor foul.

    If I was a farm family 20% IHT would be very annoying.
    But could 50% work better?

    Land is expensive because it carries tax advantages.

    If my core skill is to extract the profit from managing land effectively for the long term, I’d probably prefer to get my land cheapish.

    It's sharp transitions between tax regimes which piss of those concerned most, as much as their longer term merits or demerits.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,283

    TimS said:

    The rise in sea temperatures is largely due to the banning of sulphur in maritime fuels. This is widely recognised - part of Ed's crazy carbon capture scheme (a part that I support) is 'cloud brightening', to counteract the effects of this fuel change on the skies over the sea.

    @MoonRabbit's attempt to use the rise in sea temperatures to defend Net Zero (which will do absolutely nothing to cool the seas), is fundamentally dishonest - something sadly very common in the Net Zero lobby.

    Talking of fundamentally dishonest, here’s a global SSTA history from the 19th century to now.



    The banning of marine sulphates occurred in 2020. It’s clearly had a very impressive retrospective effect on temperatures since 1900.

    1900-2020 being of course a period during which marine sulphate emissions increased exponentially. Yet still the oceans warmed. Weird, eh! I wonder what on earth might have caused that?
    I don't doubt the trend, but I do have some scepticism about data sets that proclaim accuracy back to the 1850s for this sort of data, especially globally.
    If only the 19th Century had a global power stationing scientists all around the world. Oh wait, it did – Britain.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 56,188
    edited October 11

    Sean_F said:

    As @Richard_Tyndall has explained, one effect of the Climate Change Act is that, instead of drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea, we import it instead. That is perverse.

    Not at all, the legislation's working exactly as intended.

    May got to feel self-righteous. The current Government gets to feel self-righteous. We outsource the pollution, and the profits.

    It's entirely against the national interest, of course, but that's not the purpose of the legislation.

    It's almost the legislative equivalent of when someone buys you a birthday present, only they've given a donation to charity instead and just add your name to it with a tag of: "Your gift is a donated school desk to a third world child". With the potentially dubious charity taking a nice fat cut.
    You need to instantly remove such "friends" from your life.
    Are "Friends" Electric Renewable?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 12,168

    fitalass said:

    DavidL said:

    The Tories had a conference? Who knew?

    I did, and I bothered to follow it. Especially with us both coming from areas of Scotland that have been devastated by poor SNP governance for years and now Labour policies that have really affected our areas too?! I am sorry, but that kind of cheap dig really gets me when I think of the fact that the only real effective opposition to the SNP & SGreens has been the Scottish Conservatives!! Thank god for Scottish Conservatives and the last Conservative government at Westminster when it came to protecting women's rights. And also after just a few days ago when Douglas Ross's Right to Recovery bill all about promoting wider drug rehabilatation was voted down by the SNP and SGreens in Holyrood and in the country with the biggest drug deaths, particularly in Dundee!

    Also coming from the North East of Scotland, I remain really angry at the impact of the SNP, SGreens and now the Labour Government at Westminster's devasting impact on the North Sea Gas and Oil Industry here. So your flippant lads together comment really jarred with someone else who actually lives in the North East of Scotland right now! I am fed up watching the only Opposition party in Scotland knocking its head against a brick wall and getting dismissed in this way by a long time dismissive snobbish group on here! When I arrived on this site twenty years ago, I was out loud and a proud female Scottish Conservative and I remain so thanks to their bloody hard work protecting my rights as a biological woman here in Scotland!!

    So Kemi, you go girl!
    Morning! I encountered a very loyal Andrew Bowie voter in Banchory, because the "Tories protect my industry". We discussed the large numbers of job losses and the huge Tory flip flops on energy and Net Zero. He was resolute.

    Point is, the Tories can hardly claim to have been stalwart defenders of an industry they have run down. And not just energy, as I pointed out earlier the local farmers are fuming at both their treatment by the party and by the rank arrogance of Bowie et al assuming their vote remains secure...
    There is another problem for the North Sea hydrocarbon industry. It's been declining for a while now, simply because it's a finite resource where the easy to get coal and gas have already been extracted.



    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-61437156.amp

    Whatever we're haggling over is pretty marginal. Politics is not going to conjure up huge amounts of oil and gas.
    That's true for gas but not so much for oil. This is complicated by the fact some fields produce significant volumes of both, so if you're going in for the oil you might as well extract the gas too.
  • fitalass said:

    fitalass said:

    DavidL said:

    The Tories had a conference? Who knew?

    I did, and I bothered to follow it. Especially with us both coming from areas of Scotland that have been devastated by poor SNP governance for years and now Labour policies that have really affected our areas too?! I am sorry, but that kind of cheap dig really gets me when I think of the fact that the only real effective opposition to the SNP & SGreens has been the Scottish Conservatives!! Thank god for Scottish Conservatives and the last Conservative government at Westminster when it came to protecting women's rights. And also after just a few days ago when Douglas Ross's Right to Recovery bill all about promoting wider drug rehabilatation was voted down by the SNP and SGreens in Holyrood and in the country with the biggest drug deaths, particularly in Dundee!

    Also coming from the North East of Scotland, I remain really angry at the impact of the SNP, SGreens and now the Labour Government at Westminster's devasting impact on the North Sea Gas and Oil Industry here. So your flippant lads together comment really jarred with someone else who actually lives in the North East of Scotland right now! I am fed up watching the only Opposition party in Scotland knocking its head against a brick wall and getting dismissed in this way by a long time dismissive snobbish group on here! When I arrived on this site twenty years ago, I was out loud and a proud female Scottish Conservative and I remain so thanks to their bloody hard work protecting my rights as a biological woman here in Scotland!!

    So Kemi, you go girl!
    Morning! I encountered a very loyal Andrew Bowie voter in Banchory, because the "Tories protect my industry". We discussed the large numbers of job losses and the huge Tory flip flops on energy and Net Zero. He was resolute.

    Point is, the Tories can hardly claim to have been stalwart defenders of an industry they have run down. And not just energy, as I pointed out earlier the local farmers are fuming at both their treatment by the party and by the rank arrogance of Bowie et al assuming their vote remains secure...
    Your weakness on these policy issues in the North East of Scotland is showing, I have unlike you lived in the North East of Scotland and have been married to someone who has worked in the Oil and Gas industry here for 40 years, also now spent 20 years living in a rural area where many of our friends are farmers. There is a good reason why Andrew Bowie held onto his seat at the last GE and the fact he knows his constiuency both rural and industrial in Aberdeenshire and in Aberdeen helped a lot. So don't knock a bloody good local MP what ever his party colours!
    I'm not knocking him! As the party look to be reduced to a rump he could be the next leader!

    Now that we have set the "you're not from round here" point aside (and I accept I am not) can we go back to the points I am making?

    A big run down of the industry under the Tories. A lot of job losses. The whole net zero thing was Tory, with all that entails. Not funding CCS here was Tory. The slashing of farming subsidy in a direct betrayal of promises made was Tory. Its not us saying these things to farmers and energy workers. They are saying it to us. And Bowie got short shrift at several of the local agricultural fairs, and more so when the Tractors for Truth came into the area.

    The discontent is real, hence the decline in the vote.

    I wish more of your former voters would stick with you rather than switch to Reform.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,369

    Its a great piece by Moon Rabbit and highlights some big issues the party has. Can I offer up another example? Farming.

    Badenoch made a play of opposing Labour's farm tax - an idiotic tax that is easy to oppose. Farmers have been traditionally Tory voting and Eurosceptic, and Tories rightly believed their vote was in the bag.

    From what Farmers are telling us, that isn't the case any longer. Farmers were promised that the oven-ready Brexit deal would replace EU subsidies with British subsidies. But a few transitory environmental ones aside, the money dried up.

    Local Tories are still assuming Farmers will vote for them, and being given very short shrift by angry Farmers who feel lied to and betrayed.

    For me one of the major problems the Tory party faces is a disconnect with reality. And its the same on policy after policy - thinking x because we think it so our base must think it, without realising the former base now thinks y. Labour have suffered the same delusions in the past, but its really bad now for the Tories.

    Far from it, the Conservatives have shifted the parameters of the debate.

    It's a great example of how strong political leadership can do that and break the consensus.

    Before Kemi no-one was seriously questioning at a national level the wisdom of this law, even though no doubt many people will now "forget" this and pretend that they were.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,855

    Sean_F said:

    As @Richard_Tyndall has explained, one effect of the Climate Change Act is that, instead of drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea, we import it instead. That is perverse.

    Not at all, the legislation's working exactly as intended.

    May got to feel self-righteous. The current Government gets to feel self-righteous. We outsource the pollution, and the profits.

    It's entirely against the national interest, of course, but that's not the purpose of the legislation.

    It's almost the legislative equivalent of when someone buys you a birthday present, only they've given a donation to charity instead and just add your name to it with a tag of: "Your gift is a donated school desk to a third world child". With the potentially dubious charity taking a nice fat cut.
    You need to instantly remove such "friends" from your life.
    Are "Friends" Electric Renewable?
    Not even Reunited now, either!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,986

    Sean_F said:

    As @Richard_Tyndall has explained, one effect of the Climate Change Act is that, instead of drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea, we import it instead. That is perverse.

    Not at all, the legislation's working exactly as intended.

    May got to feel self-righteous. The current Government gets to feel self-righteous. We outsource the pollution, and the profits.

    It's entirely against the national interest, of course, but that's not the purpose of the legislation.

    It's almost the legislative equivalent of when someone buys you a birthday present, only they've given a donation to charity instead and just add your name to it with a tag of: "Your gift is a donated school desk to a third world child". With the potentially dubious charity taking a nice fat cut.
    You need to instantly remove such "friends" from your life.
    Are "Friends" Electric Renewable?
    Not even Reunited now, either!
    Friends Will Be Friends, however.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 16,297

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    The rise in sea temperatures is largely due to the banning of sulphur in maritime fuels. This is widely recognised - part of Ed's crazy carbon capture scheme (a part that I support) is 'cloud brightening', to counteract the effects of this fuel change on the skies over the sea.

    @MoonRabbit's attempt to use the rise in sea temperatures to defend Net Zero (which will do absolutely nothing to cool the seas), is fundamentally dishonest - something sadly very common in the Net Zero lobby.

    Talking of fundamentally dishonest, here’s a global SSTA history from the 19th century to now.



    The banning of marine sulphates occurred in 2020. It’s clearly had a very impressive retrospective effect on temperatures since 1900.

    1900-2020 being of course a period during which marine sulphate emissions increased exponentially. Yet still the oceans warmed. Weird, eh! I wonder what on earth might have caused that?
    I don't doubt the trend, but I do have some scepticism about data sets that proclaim accuracy back to the 1850s for this sort of data, especially globally.
    You can see the joins in the time series (and there are multiple time series shown in the graph, from different sources). From the 80s we’ve had highly accurate satellite data. Before then it’s a splicing of physical readings. The time series from the 80s shows if anything an even more monotonic rise. Impressive work for a regulation implemented in 2020.
    Oh yes, I don't doubt that more modern readings are more accurate and precise. I just doubt that you can really say that readings globally from (say) 1850 to 1900 can be treated with the same certainty wrt precision.

    Basically: there should be relatively humongous error bars on the early data.
    Which is why they show multiple datasets for that period, and why the noise is so relatively large. Error bars don’t make sense when you’re presenting several parallel sets with different datapoints.

    The trouble for palaeoclimatologists is that their painstaking work has become politicised by those with an interest in denying climate change, so that small differences between studies become the equivalent of “yebbut how does evolution explain the [insert since-debunked evolutionary headscratcher here]”
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,612

    boulay said:

    DavidL said:

    The Tories had a conference? Who knew?

    Clarkson was very ebullient about the Tory conference in his Sun column this morning - he was impressed with Stride’s speech despite bemoaning that not many people will have heard it.

    Clarkson wrote that Farage’s numbers don’t add up and when pressed he runs away and shouts about small boats, Starmer is stupid and has no idea about the economy but the Tories might have the answers if serious about making Britain a good place to start business.
    Unfortunately we have an advantage over Clarkson. @slade posts Friday updates on Thursday by elections and the numbers are unfortunately stacking up for Farage.

    Of course Clarkson wearily announced on a May 1997 edition of the original Top Gear that "you have all voted communist", so is he as reliable a non partisan as we are led to believe?
    He's the media equivalent of Boris - comfortable beneficiary of the status quo with performative winks to the right so his views are no surprise and no interest.
  • Its a great piece by Moon Rabbit and highlights some big issues the party has. Can I offer up another example? Farming.

    Badenoch made a play of opposing Labour's farm tax - an idiotic tax that is easy to oppose. Farmers have been traditionally Tory voting and Eurosceptic, and Tories rightly believed their vote was in the bag.

    From what Farmers are telling us, that isn't the case any longer. Farmers were promised that the oven-ready Brexit deal would replace EU subsidies with British subsidies. But a few transitory environmental ones aside, the money dried up.

    Local Tories are still assuming Farmers will vote for them, and being given very short shrift by angry Farmers who feel lied to and betrayed.

    For me one of the major problems the Tory party faces is a disconnect with reality. And its the same on policy after policy - thinking x because we think it so our base must think it, without realising the former base now thinks y. Labour have suffered the same delusions in the past, but its really bad now for the Tories.

    Far from it, the Conservatives have shifted the parameters of the debate.

    It's a great example of how strong political leadership can do that and break the consensus.

    Before Kemi no-one was seriously questioning at a national level the wisdom of this law, even though no doubt many people will now "forget" this and pretend that they were.
    The Tories are going to get demolished next May. English local elections. Welsh and Scottish national elections. And then nobody will say “yebbut she wants to abolish Stamp Duty”.

    I’m not remotely wedded to Stamp Duty. We don’t have it in Scotland. But having suddenly decided Stamp Duty is bad, you actually need power again to do this thing you didn’t do when you were in power. Which means persuading people to vote for you. Which they won’t.
  • Nigelb said:

    the IHT farm tax rise was neither fish nor foul.

    If I was a farm family 20% IHT would be very annoying.
    But could 50% work better?

    Land is expensive because it carries tax advantages.

    If my core skill is to extract the profit from managing land effectively for the long term, I’d probably prefer to get my land cheapish.

    It's sharp transitions between tax regimes which piss of those concerned most, as much as their longer term merits or demerits.
    Hear hear. Sharp transitions and/or revising the taxation of something you've already made a long term commitment to, e.g. family farm run for decades, pension pot funded for decades...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,041
    edited October 11
    eek said:

    Its a great piece by Moon Rabbit and highlights some big issues the party has. Can I offer up another example? Farming.

    Badenoch made a play of opposing Labour's farm tax - an idiotic tax that is easy to oppose. Farmers have been traditionally Tory voting and Eurosceptic, and Tories rightly believed their vote was in the bag.

    From what Farmers are telling us, that isn't the case any longer. Farmers were promised that the oven-ready Brexit deal would replace EU subsidies with British subsidies. But a few transitory environmental ones aside, the money dried up.

    Local Tories are still assuming Farmers will vote for them, and being given very short shrift by angry Farmers who feel lied to and betrayed.

    For me one of the major problems the Tory party faces is a disconnect with reality. And its the same on policy after policy - thinking x because we think it so our base must think it, without realising the former base now thinks y. Labour have suffered the same delusions in the past, but its really bad now for the Tories.

    The Tories biggest tax and spend policy is primarily that they are offering welcome tax cuts without offsetting these with unwelcome tax rises.

    The offset is instead one of "we are going to sack a million wasteful civil servants" and that sounds great on paper but that means things like fewer police means greater crime. There is always a trade off.

    I was in the Bridgend Council depot which is now essentially a Portakabin. Ten years ago it was a huge 1930s built series of two commercial vehicle workshops with offices, both now razed to the ground. So vehicle maintenance is farmed out to the commercial sector and the cost per unit repair is probably a lot more expensive but the cost overhead has been lost, so a win on paper. So what of all those office staff running road gangs for hedge and verge management, pot hole repair and litter picking. Well the big stuff is farmed out to contractors whilst your hedges, verges, potholes an litter are just not trimmed, filled or picked anymore.

    My biggest criticism of 21st century Tories (and Reformers) is they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
    The offset isn't real - if you are going to make people redundant you need to explicitly say what government functions are going to be reduced or binned off.

    Because there are often obvious consequences that the last Tory Government was too thick to understand.

    Reduce the number of people processing asylum claims
    those awaiting their claim to be processed take longer to be processed
    which means they need to be housed for longer

    which means you need to house more people than you have space for so suddenly that little staff saving results in £10bn being spent to hire run down hotels.
    I have given this example on here many times but after 35 years of working with local authorities a cycle applies, and it happened 35 years ago and it still happens.

    A journeyman (or woman) Chief Executive is brought in to cut costs. He/she pores over spreadsheets and determines that labour is their biggest cost, so in order to cut costs they cut staff. Easy!

    Let's take kerbside refuse collectors. In a.medium sized authority it would be reasonable to assume a 100 collectors and drivers. So the CE decides after much calculation that they can make do with 70 ( it's always a cut of circa 30%). So we have just saved just under a third of our labour cost. We can also get rid of 30% of our vehicles and their associated costs. Happy days!

    However householder start complaining that their bins/ recycling service is failing (and don't forget ratepayers pay their council tax for one thing, to get their bins emptied). So to offset the failing service they hire in first ten, then twenty, then thirty agency staff. These workers will require a corresponding number of vehicles and these will be hired in at an astronomical rate. It probably takes two years to get back up to 70 permanent staff and 30 expensive agency staff, by which time the CE who saved 30% on service provision costs has moved on to a bigger local authority to do the same.

    The next CE comes in and is tasked with reducing agency and vehicle hire costs so he/she tupees over the 30 agency staff onto the books and buys the corresponding vehicles required.

    So often, cost savings costs more than they save.

    I suspect Kemi's civil service sackings maintain a similar result.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 16,297
    Charts of North Sea oil and gas production tell a national story. Combine these with windfalls from successive privatisations, the demographic gifts of a historically low dependency ratio, and the reduced need for defence spending from 1991 onwards, and it’s no wonder governments of the era were able to preside over boom times. In fact it’s a puzzle why we didn’t do even better in the 80s and 90s.
  • Nigelb said:

    the IHT farm tax rise was neither fish nor foul.

    If I was a farm family 20% IHT would be very annoying.
    But could 50% work better?

    Land is expensive because it carries tax advantages.

    If my core skill is to extract the profit from managing land effectively for the long term, I’d probably prefer to get my land cheapish.

    It's sharp transitions between tax regimes which piss of those concerned most, as much as their longer term merits or demerits.
    Hear hear. Sharp transitions and/or revising the taxation of something you've already made a long term commitment to, e.g. family farm run for decades, pension pot funded for decades...
    On pensions, in the interests of balance, the original sin was Osborne giving far too generous tax treatment as well as huge flexibility in the 2015 changes to drawdown and death benefits. Higher tax on death was bound to come back in, it's just that HMT screwed it up by dragging schemes into IHT rather than tweaking pension-specific income tax charges.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,592
    I think it was last Saturday we were discussing American football. Just been watching the highlights of the Eagles/Giants game and it’s as good a spectacle of sport as any similar length highlight package I’ve seen of a test rugby match.

    Huge variety of play and scores, some very rugbyesque play.

    If they can work out how to cut out a lot of the dead time around games the NFL might just take off and make some money.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,283

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    AnneJGP said:

    MattW said:

    AnneJGP said:

    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JD Vance calls Canterbury Cathedral exhibit 'ugly'
    ...
    Mr Vance said: "It is weird to me that these people don't see the irony of honoring 'marginalized communities' by making a beautiful historical building really ugly."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly64e0v34jo

    Trendy vicar.

    He is actually right though, it looks absolutely hideous. Shockingly inappropriate and utterly without any feeling for the building.

    I mean, I don't know that somebody who has a face like a smacked arse and the soul of a Mafia Don is in a position to lecture. But he does, for once, have a point.
    JD Vance sounds quite like Mr Bufton-Tufton mowing his lawn in Tunbridge Wells on a Saturday afternoon, harrumphing in time to the Flymo. But I don't think he likes his Christianity escaping from the small box where he keeps it, and asking him awkward questions; we've seen that before with him. (Side note: that's a human characteristic, we all do it, and we all need challenging sometimes.)

    I think it's a fascinating exhibit. I'm in that part of Kent for a few days in December, and I'll go and have a look. A cathedral is a place where it is appropriate to ask questions about God, and cathedrals are - and always have been - buildings for everyone, so I think it's a great idea to poke some assumptions. Some people will huff and puff, and others will have think a bit more deeply.

    It was Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey who famously said "The duty of the church is to comfort the disturbed and to disturb the comfortable", which is hackneyed but a good aphorism.

    We seem quite happy with Sheela-na-gigs, and this is far less provocative than those. I'd frame it far more as a Cathedral doing what cathedrals have always done.
    Is this one of those exhibitions that tours round most cathedrals? Is each instance unique? How do they get the paint/medium off the stone?

    (Addressed to anyone who knows, not to you specifically.)

    I wonder how they'd feel if some unauthorised artist plastered graffiti on the outside walls!
    The cathedral's page about it is here, but does not explain afaics:
    https://www.canterbury-cathedral.org/news/posts/delight-and-displeasure-art-installation-s-questions-to-god-divide-public-opinion/

    I'd guess that it will be some peelable surface - which could be paint on or stick on.

    I have used paint-on protection to pre-protect walls against graffiti (so you can just hose it all off and repaint to protect for next time), or once to waterproof a shower set against a stone house wall.
    Amuses me that the link shows the explanation about the exhibition directly underneath their welcome to Sarah Mullaly, rather giving the impression that the exhibition is to welcome her.

    Be interesting to hear if the exhibition does go on tour. Some of the exhibitions that tour cathedrals are amazing. I remember one about the moon.
    FPT - I was startled to see in my Aeroplane Monthly that Rochester Cathedral recently put on show a locally made Shorts floatplane, showcasing the plane restoration volunteers' efforts and more generally engineering in the area (evidently from a local historical but also educational perspective with family activities, which usually means stuff for children).

    https://www.rochestercathedral.org/floatplane

    They thereby helped out the plane restorers by giving them a display venue to make their work known. Which is nice.

    More generally a key point about temporary exhibitions is that they will not be there for long. Another point is that they exist to do different things, sometimes experimental. So grumping about them is pointless, especially if it is to do with the Christian message anyway.
    I have some great photos of my son under the Earth at Ely Cathederal a few years back. I'm unsure what that had to do with the Christian message.

    Likewise, Chester Cathedral has, for the past few years, had a large model railway in it for a few weeks in the summer. Again, this seems more to do with pulling in the punters than it does religion (although the link between vicars and railways are much stronger than just Rev Awdry).

    I'm not a fan of graffiti. But it'll be temporary, and won't have damaged the cathedral's fabric. Sometimes people should just shrug and say "That's not for me".
    I didn't see the Earth/Moon stuff, and I should really let the Cathedrals speak for themselves, but for one thing there is a respectable strand of Christian thinking in the form of natural theology - God as seen through his Creation.

    And as for the model railway it's not just Bishop Treacy and his fellow ordained enthusiasts. There is apparently a link at Chester through Brassey the engineer.

    https://cheshireandwarrington.com/latest-news/model-railway-shunts-into-action-at-chester-cathedral/

    Though it may just be that there's nowhere else to display a 72 foot long train set. And it's not so long in geological time sicne cathedrals were pretty much used as multipurpose community halls, much as parish church halls are today ... one wouldn't blink at St Werburgh's Parish Hall being used by the Much Binding in the Marsh Railway Club for their annual day show.
    PBers will recall that the Dean of Baillie, who rescued the nurse due to be flogged in Kumran and was rewarded with a bishopric, was an authority on steam trains.
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/b4vSxaO7hJQ
    On matters theological, there is a special place in hell reserved for those who horizontally flip videos before uploading them to YouTube. It is just a clip, so you are not fooling some hash-based video identification algorithm as you might hope to be with a whole programme, film or song.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,612
    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    It is possible to target Net Zero while still seeking to maximise North Sea oil and gas extraction.

    And when you have a government locking in demand for natural gas as part of its decarbonisation strategy, through CCGT and blue hydrogen plants with CO2 capture, there is every incentive to 'drill, baby, drill' rather than import LNG from Qatar.

    I may have mentioned this previously.

    Yes, "Net Zero" means balancing off emissions from more North Sea fossil with renewables. Its not "get rid of North Sea fossils".

    I am going to be hammering this point hard in my run for Holyrood. The Reform clowns want to protect the NE by importing more gas into England and literally shutting down off-shore wind.
    Isn't Reform shutting down offshore wind technology a diktat from their handlers in the Whitehouse on behalf of Putin?
    If only it were that sophisticated. It strikes me as more the result of someone spending too much time following MAGA accounts on X.
    Doug Burgum shuttering the Danish wind farm development when it was 90% complete was pretty crazy.
    But while I can understand that US energy policy is now determined by whatever whim takes hold of Trump, I can't really get my head around Farage deciding it's something to ape.
    I really wish I was wealthy enough to laugh at an energy policy that delivers such massively cheaper energy for consumers and businesses that we manage.

    Sadly we're still run by people who think history (and the need for any economic progress) ended in the 1990s - meanwhile the rest of the world continues to develop. The best immigration policy now would be letting people know they're backing the wrong horse and Poland will be better off than us in short order.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 12,168
    edited October 11

    Its a great piece by Moon Rabbit and highlights some big issues the party has. Can I offer up another example? Farming.

    Badenoch made a play of opposing Labour's farm tax - an idiotic tax that is easy to oppose. Farmers have been traditionally Tory voting and Eurosceptic, and Tories rightly believed their vote was in the bag.

    From what Farmers are telling us, that isn't the case any longer. Farmers were promised that the oven-ready Brexit deal would replace EU subsidies with British subsidies. But a few transitory environmental ones aside, the money dried up.

    Local Tories are still assuming Farmers will vote for them, and being given very short shrift by angry Farmers who feel lied to and betrayed.

    For me one of the major problems the Tory party faces is a disconnect with reality. And its the same on policy after policy - thinking x because we think it so our base must think it, without realising the former base now thinks y. Labour have suffered the same delusions in the past, but its really bad now for the Tories.

    Far from it, the Conservatives have shifted the parameters of the debate.

    It's a great example of how strong political leadership can do that and break the consensus.

    Before Kemi no-one was seriously questioning at a national level the wisdom of this law, even though no doubt many people will now "forget" this and pretend that they were.
    The Tories are going to get demolished next May. English local elections. Welsh and Scottish national elections. And then nobody will say “yebbut she wants to abolish Stamp Duty”.

    I’m not remotely wedded to Stamp Duty. We don’t have it in Scotland. But having suddenly decided Stamp Duty is bad, you actually need power again to do this thing you didn’t do when you were in power. Which means persuading people to vote for you. Which they won’t.
    Errrr - we do, and it's a significantly higher tax here than down south (LBTT). It's starting to catch middle class people out in the central belt and that is anathema to the SNP, who are the masters of middle class bungs dressed up as progressive policy.

    I'd suggest that it could become enough of a deal in Scotland for SCon to get double figures. If I buy with my partner it will cost me around £20k.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,890

    Cicero said:

    The Tories can take some small mercies from their conference: there was only the usual amount of plotting and anyway, since there were so few attending conference this year, their hearts weren't really in it. The party did not self destruct, and Kemi Badenoch surprised a bit on the upside.

    Yet too many Tories conclude that Reform policies are what the Conservatives need to beat Reform. However, as with Brexit itself, these policies are questionable at best and mostly a confused and unworkable mess.

    Science doesn't give a toss about Tory rejection of net zero- carbon pollution will be a reality whether the Tories believe in it or not. Protecting the environment is not some gimmick, it is central to building a sustainable future for the planet. How you do this is open to debate, but the science is unarguable: anthropic climate change is happening now, what are humans going to do about it? The current Tory answer is stupid: scrap meaningful changes and ignore the problem.

    Likewise with immigration, reality doesn't give a stuff about Tory policies. The 14 year car crash created a massive wave of immigration without any consent from the governed. Tories now want to wish it away by destroying civil liberties and using force. not only unworkable, but actively dangerous. Leaving the ECHR is a Trumpian idea that would fail to change anything. Anyway hard line anti-immigration policies look hypocritical and ridiculous in the mouth or a woman who grew up in Nigeria and the US. In the end the conference merely exposed the chaotic strategic thinking at the heart of the party.

    Yet there is a tiny glimmer: the economy. The stamp duty idea hit home because it could actually work as part of addressing the can of worms that is the UK housing market. If the Tories began to talk economics instead of the Reform agenda of social conservatism and borderline authoritarianism, maybe there is a way back. Being a bit libertarian and having a far more free market bottom line might remind people why the Tories could have a purpose.

    The Tories were always two parties: that Tebbit and Rifkind were in the same cabinet is always jarring to me. The Tebbit wing is flirting very hard with Farage, but the party in its current form is not a party of wealth and aspiration any more- losing the Waitrose voters to the Lib Dems is an astonishing defeat. Can the Tories at least start to ask the right questions? No one knows, and if this conference showed anything, it is that they are still megaparsecs from finding a coherent set of answers.

    The fat lady is clearing her throat for the Tories, but they may have one last chance, if they ignore the Alan B'stard wing of Jenrick and his ilk and focus on serious reform of the economy and especially of public administration.

    Aspiration is not only for the wealthy unaffected by, or even benefitting from, upward pressure on house prices and downward pressure on wages.

    Its also for those born with less privilege for whom endless immigration and ever higher energy costs severely restrict their life opportunities.
    I'm not in favour of those things, directly or indirectly- so your point falls.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,175

    eek said:

    Its a great piece by Moon Rabbit and highlights some big issues the party has. Can I offer up another example? Farming.

    Badenoch made a play of opposing Labour's farm tax - an idiotic tax that is easy to oppose. Farmers have been traditionally Tory voting and Eurosceptic, and Tories rightly believed their vote was in the bag.

    From what Farmers are telling us, that isn't the case any longer. Farmers were promised that the oven-ready Brexit deal would replace EU subsidies with British subsidies. But a few transitory environmental ones aside, the money dried up.

    Local Tories are still assuming Farmers will vote for them, and being given very short shrift by angry Farmers who feel lied to and betrayed.

    For me one of the major problems the Tory party faces is a disconnect with reality. And its the same on policy after policy - thinking x because we think it so our base must think it, without realising the former base now thinks y. Labour have suffered the same delusions in the past, but its really bad now for the Tories.

    The Tories biggest tax and spend policy is primarily that they are offering welcome tax cuts without offsetting these with unwelcome tax rises.

    The offset is instead one of "we are going to sack a million wasteful civil servants" and that sounds great on paper but that means things like fewer police means greater crime. There is always a trade off.

    I was in the Bridgend Council depot which is now essentially a Portakabin. Ten years ago it was a huge 1930s built series of two commercial vehicle workshops with offices, both now razed to the ground. So vehicle maintenance is farmed out to the commercial sector and the cost per unit repair is probably a lot more expensive but the cost overhead has been lost, so a win on paper. So what of all those office staff running road gangs for hedge and verge management, pot hole repair and litter picking. Well the big stuff is farmed out to contractors whilst your hedges, verges, potholes an litter are just not trimmed, filled or picked anymore.

    My biggest criticism of 21st century Tories (and Reformers) is they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
    The offset isn't real - if you are going to make people redundant you need to explicitly say what government functions are going to be reduced or binned off.

    Because there are often obvious consequences that the last Tory Government was too thick to understand.

    Reduce the number of people processing asylum claims
    those awaiting their claim to be processed take longer to be processed
    which means they need to be housed for longer

    which means you need to house more people than you have space for so suddenly that little staff saving results in £10bn being spent to hire run down hotels.
    I have given this example on here many times but after 35 years of working with local authorities a cycle applies, and it happened 35 years ago and it still happens.

    A journeyman (or woman) Chief Executive is brought in to cut costs. He/she pores over spreadsheets and determines that labour is their biggest cost, so in order to cut costs they cut staff. Easy!

    Let's take kerbside refuse collectors. In a.medium sized authority it would be reasonable to assume a 100 collectors and drivers. So the CE decides after much calculation that they can make do with 70 ( it's always a cut of circa 30%). So we have just saved just under a third of our labour cost. We can also get rid of 30% of our vehicles and their associated costs. Happy days!

    However householder start complaining that their bins/ recycling service is failing (and don't forget ratepayers pay their council tax for one thing, to get their bins emptied). So to offset the failing service they hire in first ten, then twenty, then thirty agency staff. These workers will require a corresponding number of vehicles and these will be hired in at an astronomical rate. It probably takes two years to get back up to 70 permanent staff and 30 expensive agency staff, by which time the CE who saved 30% on service provision costs has moved on to a bigger local authority to do the same.

    The next CE comes in and is tasked with reducing agency and vehicle hire costs so he/she tupees over the 30 agency staff onto the books and buys the corresponding vehicles required.

    So often, cost savings costs more than they save.

    I suspect Kemi's civil service sackings maintain a similar result.
    Has anyone ever established why the number of civil servants has increased since the middle of the 2010s?

    I'm assuming it's related to the other big thing that happened in the middle of the 2010s, but that might just be horrible centrist prejudice.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,041
    boulay said:

    I think it was last Saturday we were discussing American football. Just been watching the highlights of the Eagles/Giants game and it’s as good a spectacle of sport as any similar length highlight package I’ve seen of a test rugby match.

    Huge variety of play and scores, some very rugbyesque play.

    If they can work out how to cut out a lot of the dead time around games the NFL might just take off and make some money.

    Nonsense! Cliff Morgan says otherwise.

    https://youtu.be/BXUdGPjJHkc?si=TtGIIH6bwCGRrGig
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,283

    Nigelb said:

    the IHT farm tax rise was neither fish nor foul.

    If I was a farm family 20% IHT would be very annoying.
    But could 50% work better?

    Land is expensive because it carries tax advantages.

    If my core skill is to extract the profit from managing land effectively for the long term, I’d probably prefer to get my land cheapish.

    It's sharp transitions between tax regimes which piss of those concerned most, as much as their longer term merits or demerits.
    Hear hear. Sharp transitions and/or revising the taxation of something you've already made a long term commitment to, e.g. family farm run for decades, pension pot funded for decades...
    On pensions, in the interests of balance, the original sin was Osborne giving far too generous tax treatment as well as huge flexibility in the 2015 changes to drawdown and death benefits. Higher tax on death was bound to come back in, it's just that HMT screwed it up by dragging schemes into IHT rather than tweaking pension-specific income tax charges.
    Something had to be done to ease pension drawdown because annuity payments had become a lottery based on interest rates on your 65th birthday.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,041

    eek said:

    Its a great piece by Moon Rabbit and highlights some big issues the party has. Can I offer up another example? Farming.

    Badenoch made a play of opposing Labour's farm tax - an idiotic tax that is easy to oppose. Farmers have been traditionally Tory voting and Eurosceptic, and Tories rightly believed their vote was in the bag.

    From what Farmers are telling us, that isn't the case any longer. Farmers were promised that the oven-ready Brexit deal would replace EU subsidies with British subsidies. But a few transitory environmental ones aside, the money dried up.

    Local Tories are still assuming Farmers will vote for them, and being given very short shrift by angry Farmers who feel lied to and betrayed.

    For me one of the major problems the Tory party faces is a disconnect with reality. And its the same on policy after policy - thinking x because we think it so our base must think it, without realising the former base now thinks y. Labour have suffered the same delusions in the past, but its really bad now for the Tories.

    The Tories biggest tax and spend policy is primarily that they are offering welcome tax cuts without offsetting these with unwelcome tax rises.

    The offset is instead one of "we are going to sack a million wasteful civil servants" and that sounds great on paper but that means things like fewer police means greater crime. There is always a trade off.

    I was in the Bridgend Council depot which is now essentially a Portakabin. Ten years ago it was a huge 1930s built series of two commercial vehicle workshops with offices, both now razed to the ground. So vehicle maintenance is farmed out to the commercial sector and the cost per unit repair is probably a lot more expensive but the cost overhead has been lost, so a win on paper. So what of all those office staff running road gangs for hedge and verge management, pot hole repair and litter picking. Well the big stuff is farmed out to contractors whilst your hedges, verges, potholes an litter are just not trimmed, filled or picked anymore.

    My biggest criticism of 21st century Tories (and Reformers) is they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
    The offset isn't real - if you are going to make people redundant you need to explicitly say what government functions are going to be reduced or binned off.

    Because there are often obvious consequences that the last Tory Government was too thick to understand.

    Reduce the number of people processing asylum claims
    those awaiting their claim to be processed take longer to be processed
    which means they need to be housed for longer

    which means you need to house more people than you have space for so suddenly that little staff saving results in £10bn being spent to hire run down hotels.
    I have given this example on here many times but after 35 years of working with local authorities a cycle applies, and it happened 35 years ago and it still happens.

    A journeyman (or woman) Chief Executive is brought in to cut costs. He/she pores over spreadsheets and determines that labour is their biggest cost, so in order to cut costs they cut staff. Easy!

    Let's take kerbside refuse collectors. In a.medium sized authority it would be reasonable to assume a 100 collectors and drivers. So the CE decides after much calculation that they can make do with 70 ( it's always a cut of circa 30%). So we have just saved just under a third of our labour cost. We can also get rid of 30% of our vehicles and their associated costs. Happy days!

    However householder start complaining that their bins/ recycling service is failing (and don't forget ratepayers pay their council tax for one thing, to get their bins emptied). So to offset the failing service they hire in first ten, then twenty, then thirty agency staff. These workers will require a corresponding number of vehicles and these will be hired in at an astronomical rate. It probably takes two years to get back up to 70 permanent staff and 30 expensive agency staff, by which time the CE who saved 30% on service provision costs has moved on to a bigger local authority to do the same.

    The next CE comes in and is tasked with reducing agency and vehicle hire costs so he/she tupees over the 30 agency staff onto the books and buys the corresponding vehicles required.

    So often, cost savings costs more than they save.

    I suspect Kemi's civil service sackings maintain a similar result.
    Has anyone ever established why the number of civil servants has increased since the middle of the 2010s?

    I'm assuming it's related to the other big thing that happened in the middle of the 2010s, but that might just be horrible centrist prejudice.
    Don't say it out loud. Whisper it- Brexit!

    I said it quietly so I don't think anyone noticed.
  • Eabhal said:

    Its a great piece by Moon Rabbit and highlights some big issues the party has. Can I offer up another example? Farming.

    Badenoch made a play of opposing Labour's farm tax - an idiotic tax that is easy to oppose. Farmers have been traditionally Tory voting and Eurosceptic, and Tories rightly believed their vote was in the bag.

    From what Farmers are telling us, that isn't the case any longer. Farmers were promised that the oven-ready Brexit deal would replace EU subsidies with British subsidies. But a few transitory environmental ones aside, the money dried up.

    Local Tories are still assuming Farmers will vote for them, and being given very short shrift by angry Farmers who feel lied to and betrayed.

    For me one of the major problems the Tory party faces is a disconnect with reality. And its the same on policy after policy - thinking x because we think it so our base must think it, without realising the former base now thinks y. Labour have suffered the same delusions in the past, but its really bad now for the Tories.

    Far from it, the Conservatives have shifted the parameters of the debate.

    It's a great example of how strong political leadership can do that and break the consensus.

    Before Kemi no-one was seriously questioning at a national level the wisdom of this law, even though no doubt many people will now "forget" this and pretend that they were.
    The Tories are going to get demolished next May. English local elections. Welsh and Scottish national elections. And then nobody will say “yebbut she wants to abolish Stamp Duty”.

    I’m not remotely wedded to Stamp Duty. We don’t have it in Scotland. But having suddenly decided Stamp Duty is bad, you actually need power again to do this thing you didn’t do when you were in power. Which means persuading people to vote for you. Which they won’t.
    Errrr - we do, and it's a significantly higher tax here than down south (LBTT). It's starting to catch middle class people out in the central belt and that is anathema to the SNP, who are the masters of middle class bungs dressed up as progressive policy.

    I'd suggest that it could become enough of a deal in Scotland for SCon to get double figures. If I buy with my partner it will cost me around £20k.
    LBTT is not Stamp Duty, nor is it under the remit of Westminster. I listened to various podcasts yesterday and Ruth Davidson was scathing about Kemi not speaking about Scotland or Wales at all and that her big policy doesn't apply in those nations...
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 12,168

    Its a great piece by Moon Rabbit and highlights some big issues the party has. Can I offer up another example? Farming.

    Badenoch made a play of opposing Labour's farm tax - an idiotic tax that is easy to oppose. Farmers have been traditionally Tory voting and Eurosceptic, and Tories rightly believed their vote was in the bag.

    From what Farmers are telling us, that isn't the case any longer. Farmers were promised that the oven-ready Brexit deal would replace EU subsidies with British subsidies. But a few transitory environmental ones aside, the money dried up.

    Local Tories are still assuming Farmers will vote for them, and being given very short shrift by angry Farmers who feel lied to and betrayed.

    For me one of the major problems the Tory party faces is a disconnect with reality. And its the same on policy after policy - thinking x because we think it so our base must think it, without realising the former base now thinks y. Labour have suffered the same delusions in the past, but its really bad now for the Tories.

    Far from it, the Conservatives have shifted the parameters of the debate.

    It's a great example of how strong political leadership can do that and break the consensus.

    Before Kemi no-one was seriously questioning at a national level the wisdom of this law, even though no doubt many people will now "forget" this and pretend that they were.
    I'm not sure about the Climate Change Act. But on Stamp Duty, I think Badenoch has found a vein of "common sense policies" that she can just ask pester the government with. And I think she is enough of a fresh face that the whining about why the Conservatives didn't do it when they were in office doesn't land. Examples:

    1) Why are we investing so little in on-street EV charging?
    2) Why haven't we abolished Stamp Duty when every economist says we should?
    3) Why aren't we trying to reform the Refugee Convention? We all know it needs to happen.
    4) Why haven't we dualled the A1?

    etc etc
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,306

    eek said:

    Its a great piece by Moon Rabbit and highlights some big issues the party has. Can I offer up another example? Farming.

    Badenoch made a play of opposing Labour's farm tax - an idiotic tax that is easy to oppose. Farmers have been traditionally Tory voting and Eurosceptic, and Tories rightly believed their vote was in the bag.

    From what Farmers are telling us, that isn't the case any longer. Farmers were promised that the oven-ready Brexit deal would replace EU subsidies with British subsidies. But a few transitory environmental ones aside, the money dried up.

    Local Tories are still assuming Farmers will vote for them, and being given very short shrift by angry Farmers who feel lied to and betrayed.

    For me one of the major problems the Tory party faces is a disconnect with reality. And its the same on policy after policy - thinking x because we think it so our base must think it, without realising the former base now thinks y. Labour have suffered the same delusions in the past, but its really bad now for the Tories.

    The Tories biggest tax and spend policy is primarily that they are offering welcome tax cuts without offsetting these with unwelcome tax rises.

    The offset is instead one of "we are going to sack a million wasteful civil servants" and that sounds great on paper but that means things like fewer police means greater crime. There is always a trade off.

    I was in the Bridgend Council depot which is now essentially a Portakabin. Ten years ago it was a huge 1930s built series of two commercial vehicle workshops with offices, both now razed to the ground. So vehicle maintenance is farmed out to the commercial sector and the cost per unit repair is probably a lot more expensive but the cost overhead has been lost, so a win on paper. So what of all those office staff running road gangs for hedge and verge management, pot hole repair and litter picking. Well the big stuff is farmed out to contractors whilst your hedges, verges, potholes an litter are just not trimmed, filled or picked anymore.

    My biggest criticism of 21st century Tories (and Reformers) is they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
    The offset isn't real - if you are going to make people redundant you need to explicitly say what government functions are going to be reduced or binned off.

    Because there are often obvious consequences that the last Tory Government was too thick to understand.

    Reduce the number of people processing asylum claims
    those awaiting their claim to be processed take longer to be processed
    which means they need to be housed for longer

    which means you need to house more people than you have space for so suddenly that little staff saving results in £10bn being spent to hire run down hotels.
    I have given this example on here many times but after 35 years of working with local authorities a cycle applies, and it happened 35 years ago and it still happens.

    A journeyman (or woman) Chief Executive is brought in to cut costs. He/she pores over spreadsheets and determines that labour is their biggest cost, so in order to cut costs they cut staff. Easy!

    Let's take kerbside refuse collectors. In a.medium sized authority it would be reasonable to assume a 100 collectors and drivers. So the CE decides after much calculation that they can make do with 70 ( it's always a cut of circa 30%). So we have just saved just under a third of our labour cost. We can also get rid of 30% of our vehicles and their associated costs. Happy days!

    However householder start complaining that their bins/ recycling service is failing (and don't forget ratepayers pay their council tax for one thing, to get their bins emptied). So to offset the failing service they hire in first ten, then twenty, then thirty agency staff. These workers will require a corresponding number of vehicles and these will be hired in at an astronomical rate. It probably takes two years to get back up to 70 permanent staff and 30 expensive agency staff, by which time the CE who saved 30% on service provision costs has moved on to a bigger local authority to do the same.

    The next CE comes in and is tasked with reducing agency and vehicle hire costs so he/she tupees over the 30 agency staff onto the books and buys the corresponding vehicles required.

    So often, cost savings costs more than they save.

    I suspect Kemi's civil service sackings maintain a similar result.
    Has anyone ever established why the number of civil servants has increased since the middle of the 2010s?

    I'm assuming it's related to the other big thing that happened in the middle of the 2010s, but that might just be horrible centrist prejudice.
    You mean the freedom to do our own thing means we have to pay people to do our thing, even though that thing is the same as what we were doing before?
Sign In or Register to comment.