Can I recommend to you all a thoroughly interesting 45 minute conversation between Polanski and James Medway, one of the economists I respect most: https://pca.st/episode/aa464011-8ea3-4f3f-8903-0cef76bf3481. Even if Polanski is not your cup of tea (and he isn't mine economically), Meadway is both very intelligent and an excellent communicator.
Two points, a trigger warning and a question: 1. One of the things I respect most about Meadway is that, almost uniquely amongst left-wing economists, he engages with the reality of the power of the bond markets in the UK, resisting the simplistic 'just borrow more' that Polanski wants to hear. 2. Meadway laces his conversation about economics with an understanding of the current and likely future impacts of climate change. At a time when it feels like everyone has just stopped talking about this, that's really refreshing.
The trigger warning: Meadway was economic adviser to McDonnell when he was Shadow Chancellor. If your thinking goes McDonnell=Corbyn=Antisemitism=Evil, maybe spend your scarce 45 mins elsewhere. But if you're interested in a coherent left-wing critique of our economic system it's worth your time.
The question: particularly for @Luckyguy1983 as I know you have views on this, but also for any right of centre person interested in economics - what do you make of Meadway's arguments (first 10 mins of the podcast) about how the BoE deals with its ownership of government debt?
The fact everyone has stopped talking about it shows just how fickle and faddish most public opinion is.
Trump has blocked it on the Right and the Left has decided that Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience.
I will still talk about climate change, but I have asymptotically approached my personal limit on the number of times I am willing to have the same fruitless "debate" with people who deny the science.
As fruitless internet debates go it has nearly a 15 year head start on Brexit, for example.
I think it's more that the debate is effectively over. Very few people continue to deny it exists, or that humans are responsible for it. You still get people like Casino_Royale who think it's just some culture war game, but the data is becoming metronomic - we're about to declare this year our hottest year on record (again). I think we all understand that with Trump any debate/campaign for mitigation is fruitless until we get a sane Thatcher-type figure on the right again.
At some point we are going to need to have a serious conversation about adaptation. That's what so pathetic about those people who suggest we can't stop it happening - fine, so where's the big plan for 3 degrees+?
On the domestic front, we have nobody building any water infrastructure, and a virtual ban on dredging for the last 20-25 years, due to EU habitat legislation, then we blame the resulting summer droughts and winter floods on climate change.
I don't think it is included in the above - one of our basic planning policies since about 2010 has been that surface water runoff from a development should be no more than the pre-existing site - that's where all our balancing ponds come from. The last one of these I did required a preliminary design as part of Outline Permission, required to establish that the site was suitable for development; it was done by Mott McDonald and came to around £250 per potential housing unit just for the preliminary design.
The Thames Tideway Tunnel, which came online last year, was about £5 billion on its own.
That's all water infrastructure, as is investment in sewerage treatment, canal and river maintenance, and the rest.
That is a fair response to a point I made that included hyperbole but was still an important one.
There have been no major reservoirs built for over 30 years - the last one (there are some being built now) was completed in 1992. At the same time, the population has risen by 11 million.
I find that staggering, and it makes me extremely cynical when people panic about our weather conditions.
In general I'd argue that building more reservoirs should be the last resort, as it is a 'tailpipe' solution. Reduction of demand should come first, just as reduction of energy demand should come before building more power stations or windmills or solar farms. So for me that means measures such as leak reduction and 100% water meters, which apply the market mechanism and themselves generate a reduction of 10-12% in water usage, before we spend hundreds of millions on new reservoirs.
I think one of the unforeseen problems of the last budget will be caused by the unbundling of insulation etc programmes from energy bills - it can now be seen and will be far easier to target in political debate. The programme has been very successful for 15 years doing basics such as loft insulation, until the current one is under severe question - when the programme has been doing more complex installations (eg external wall insulation) with inadequate standards / supervision.
I am sure you would argue that - I would argue the opposite. Your argument leads to the British economy where it now is - mine leads to the Chinese economy where it now is. Abundant and cheap energy is a pre-requisite for any prosperous society, and is the lifeblood of human progress.
More specifically, having a deliberate policy of failing to build sufficient reservoirs, and instead blame the public for water shortages - encouraging them to water their gardens less, even to shower less (truly revolting) and take other punitive measures to combat 'water shortages' (when Winter floods will be along soon) is simply gaslighting.
I admit I just don't see that as a viable argument. I think you are assuming a zero-sum game, which is not the case. I don't see how a concept of blame applies.
Achieving the same outcome using fewer resources is a simple increase in efficiency. How is that not a benefit.
Why should we want to use 25% more water (or electricity) than necessary? Would you argue against reduced fuel consumption in a motor vehicle on the same basis?
The point about reservoirs is that if water consumption is reduced, fewer reservoirs is not "insufficient"; it changes the definition of "sufficient" to be a smaller quantity.
To turn the question around, why should we waste scarce resources on building unnecessary reservoirs or power stations?
For a specific example on water, current use in Denmark is around 105l per person per day, compared to 130-140l in England. Denmark does not seem to have an economy on its knees, and is noticeably prosperous.
Because water is not scarce. It is especially unscarce in the UK. It is an abundant resource that is there to be enjoyed and used. The idea of convincing the public that it is running out and that they are showering too long or gardening too much is a despicable perversion of the truth that would mystify and appall our ancestors.
Chronic mismanagement may get us to water shortages, but it certainly shouldn't be on the cards.
And we really really shouldn't be operating things at the bare minimum level in an any case, that's not very sustainable if any problems ever emerge.
Yes. A sensible safety margin means that a drought has to be more severe to cause serious difficulties.
Indeed, if you're trying to adapt to a world with more extreme weather phenomenon, then more reservoirs seems about the most sensible possible first step to do for that.
The lack of investment shows that for all the talk, our politicians are not remotely taking the climate seriously.
Yes, all true.
Although there are a variety of different approaches you might want to take. A domestic greywater system - to collect rainwater from your roof to use to flush toilets - seems like a good thing that would improve resilience.
Or even simpler - a rainwater butt to collect water from the roof to water the garden.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Reduction of demand should come first, just as reduction of energy demand should come before building more power stations or windmills or solar farms.
I do beg to differ, here. Demand reduction measures are an admission a country's energy policy has failed. Abundant, affordable energy has long been acknowledged to be a significant economic asset and social good. Now that we have multiple ways of generating power with little environmental impact, that should always be the priority.
Spending money on insulation schemes, to pick the example you mentioned, is, on a macro level, a complete waste of money. It's an extremely expensive way of reducing demand in one very specific area, without having enough scale to give any general benefits.
Spend that money on new generation facilities and overall supply improves, prices go down for everyone (presuming a free market) and it increases reliability in the system. Build enough and you end up with a surplus of supply, which attracts energy-intensive industries, providing jobs, and can bring opportunities to profit by supplying excess to countries with an energy shortfall.
We should be building wind farms, solar and SMRs as fast as possible. Having too much energy is always better than not having enough.
Could not agree more. This 100% is correct.
If energy is clean, then there's no environmental reason to demand less.
If energy is not clean, then there's no way to get to net zero.
Demand reduction achieves diddly squat and is unscientific gibberish to further hairshirt agendas.
Clean, abundant, cheap and well-used energy is the future.
I think efficiency is always a benefit, so I would support improved insulation, LED lighting, air fryers, etc, but when some people talk about demand reduction it sounds like rationing.
Efficiency is great, yes. I love my air fryer, and LED lights and so on and so forth.
But that is embracing newer technologies that are an improvement, not stepping backwards.
My air fryer cooks better than the oven, most days of the year. Christmas Day I cooked with the oven due to the scale of what was being cooked, but most other days the air fryer operates instead, cooking better and cheaper.
When people want to say "don't travel", or "sit in the cold", or "don't consume" then they're not seeking to either help the environment in a scientific manner, or improve matters for people, they're pushing a bonkers agenda.
Air fryer = small oven
Arguably ‘very small oven’ to be accurate. Very efficient. I have no idea why they are/were marketed as air fryers, as they don’t fry food(at best it’s roasted).
They've very small fan ovens. The circulation of the hot air is a crucial part of how they work.
Unless you live in a caravan, I still don’t really see the point in them. Air fryer owners bang on about them but it doesn’t feel like they do anything I can’t already do with my oven
For things that can fit into them they are faster, produce a better result, are easier to clean and use less energy (so cheaper).
Roast chicken, roast beef, potatoes in various ways (though I did gratin in the oven yesterday), sausages, all are better in the air fryer.
They're a genuine leap forward in kitchen technology.
I’m kind of despairing at the news about Mr Abd El Fattah. It suggests that the entirety of government machinery is perpetuating a hoax on the wider public.
Although I understand Abd El Fattah is a noted dissident from a celebrated family of dissidents, he ought not to have passed the Fit and Proper test for citizenship. And it beggars belief that almost the entire political class, from both legacy mainstream political parties, campaigned so strongly for his release when his social media activity was always publicly available.
Brass Eye. Cake.
Nothing has changed - any bandwagon that is superficially attractive will get jumped on.
I’ve mentioned before getting an MP enthusiastic about growing peanuts in Africa to make oil for ZEV. After 10 minutes conversation he was ready to take it to the Minister. Wish I had been there for that.
When Brass Eye was made, it was still generally assumed that while backbench MPs and celebrities might be a bit gullible, there were serious people behind the scenes who knew what they were doing.
Now it seems as though the entire state has been taken in, and to add insult to injury, is directly funding the hoaxters who are busy making fools of us.
You raise an interesting question about just how much the State itself is funding the legion of charities who then insist on new measures to constrain, emasculate and otherwise siphon more monies from the State.
Indeed it might be be of the main self-perpetuating activities of the “elite”, with both left and right wing flavours.
Elon has been talking about this for most of 2025 to general heckles and finger wagging.
Regrettably, and based on my serving of the board of one charity, I’ve come to the conclusion that a great deal of charitable activity is essentially bollocks, if not outright grift.
Dunno about grift or malice, but expecting charities to do the good things society wants is playing on easy mode.
Most of the wicked problems in society are the ones about tradeoffs; which of these two good things should we prefer, or which of these two bad things should we reluctantly accept for now?
Charities are programmed, required even, to ignore tradeoffs. They have a charitable purpose, and they are duty-bound to do that as much as they can, no matter what the external consequences are. Much like that imaginary robot that keeps making paperclips, even if it ends up destroying human civilization to do so.
Those tradeoffs are the stuff of government and politics. But we've decided to deny their existence, which is one of the underlying causes of... all of this.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
The Tories have their fingerprints all over this. Again, this is the price of unthinkingly accepting the woke liberal consensus rather than fighting back. It's peak centrist dad. Instead of challenging and being sceptical the idiot Tories just bought what the left were selling about this terrorist sympathiser and antisemite. Kemi should come out strongly against all of the Tories involved with it and make a break from the failures of the past as well as call out the party for just giving in on these topics and vow to never fall into that trap again etc...
Can I recommend to you all a thoroughly interesting 45 minute conversation between Polanski and James Medway, one of the economists I respect most: https://pca.st/episode/aa464011-8ea3-4f3f-8903-0cef76bf3481. Even if Polanski is not your cup of tea (and he isn't mine economically), Meadway is both very intelligent and an excellent communicator.
Two points, a trigger warning and a question: 1. One of the things I respect most about Meadway is that, almost uniquely amongst left-wing economists, he engages with the reality of the power of the bond markets in the UK, resisting the simplistic 'just borrow more' that Polanski wants to hear. 2. Meadway laces his conversation about economics with an understanding of the current and likely future impacts of climate change. At a time when it feels like everyone has just stopped talking about this, that's really refreshing.
The trigger warning: Meadway was economic adviser to McDonnell when he was Shadow Chancellor. If your thinking goes McDonnell=Corbyn=Antisemitism=Evil, maybe spend your scarce 45 mins elsewhere. But if you're interested in a coherent left-wing critique of our economic system it's worth your time.
The question: particularly for @Luckyguy1983 as I know you have views on this, but also for any right of centre person interested in economics - what do you make of Meadway's arguments (first 10 mins of the podcast) about how the BoE deals with its ownership of government debt?
The fact everyone has stopped talking about it shows just how fickle and faddish most public opinion is.
Trump has blocked it on the Right and the Left has decided that Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience.
I will still talk about climate change, but I have asymptotically approached my personal limit on the number of times I am willing to have the same fruitless "debate" with people who deny the science.
As fruitless internet debates go it has nearly a 15 year head start on Brexit, for example.
I think it's more that the debate is effectively over. Very few people continue to deny it exists, or that humans are responsible for it. You still get people like Casino_Royale who think it's just some culture war game, but the data is becoming metronomic - we're about to declare this year our hottest year on record (again).
Er, sod off, old boy.
I've never said anything but climate change is a real thing on here, and have been remarkably consistent in saying that for decades. I also regularly cite Thatcher as one of the first major political leaders to draw attention to the issue, because she understood the science. And a reason why those on the Right shouldn't view climate change as a secret Lefty plot.
Take that back please.
Nope - you suggested that "Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience" - as if caring about the environment is simply a fad for the left. From my experience, concerns for Gaza and the consequences of climate change are both deeply held - and can be at the same time.
I'm sure your personal concern about climate change is sincere - perhaps consider that is also the case for those you would normally consider your political opposites.
People who desire to embrace clean technologies to transition away from dirty ones care about the environment.
People who desire us not to extract domestic oil and gas but to burn as many imports as desired instead do not.
People who wish to prevent others from having holidays or living their lives do not.
People who wish to use the mantra of the environment to further their own agenda, whether it be smashing capitalism or pushing veganism or any other bullshit do not.
There is nothing wrong with caring about the environment and we should seek to transition to clean technologies to do so, the problem is too many with a hate-filled agenda they try to sneak past others in the name of the environment.
Moving past climate change denial to climatr change bargaining:
"Climate change is happenning but we don't need to take serious action, we can carry on much the same"
Embracing clean technologies is taking serious action, which enables us to carry on much the same, yes.
Cutting off our nose to spite our face is not taking serious action and won't impact global emissions as the rest of the world isn't stupid enough to do that.
It's the tragedy of the commons: if everyone else has your attitude, the problem never gets fixed. However, fortunately, by and large, that hasn't happened and we have had good international cooperation with countries working together. Our net zero plans have been pretty similar to other countries'. Until Trump came along and blew a whole in the US position, that is.
Wrong, if people have your attitude, the problem never gets fixed.
With my attitude, we embrace clean technologies and fix the problems.
Cutting off our nose and saying "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat" or any other bullshit does diddly squat to fix the problems.
Embracing clean technologies does. Once the problem is fixed, others can copy our solutions, and we can copy theirs.
Invest in science and technology and research, don't cut consumption.
We may be talking at cross-purposes then -- my apologies. I'm not saying "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat". I am rejecting the idea that we shouldn't do things beause we're a small part of global emissions or because other countries are supposedly not doing the same.
Then we are, because I said we should fix the problems by investing in clean technologies to replace dirty ones, which enables us to carry on as before, but better.
Investing in clean tech has the advantage that once clean tech is developed, others copy it, and we can copy theirs too, so win/win.
Cutting off our nose to spite our face does nothing to fix the actual problems, but is the desired outcome of some people. That things do not go on as before, that we stop consuming, that we stop driving, that we stop travelling. Well that's never happening, what we need is clean travel, clean tech, clean energy, and bountiful amounts of it.
I think you're railing against a straw man there.
Sadly, I'm not. I'm railing against a view repeatedly expressed here, including earlier by Foxy (not for the first time I might add).
There is sadly an attitude amongst some that believing that technology will solve our problems is somehow wishful or magical thinking and that we need to cut things instead.
Well to invoke Arthur C Clarke, any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic - and that is precisely what we need to tackle climate change. Invest in clean technologies, don't tell people what they can and can't do.
No-one, apart from you, has said "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat". Others have talked about government policies that sometimes restrict what people do in certain ways. You are strawmanning what is being said.
We should definitely invest in clean technologies -- and are -- but governments also often tell people what not to do, e.g. abolishing leaded petrol. This can be a successful way of intervening. Investing in clean technologies alone won't work.
If its been posted before apologies. Alastair and Rory's best and worst politicians of the year.
The surprise is Rory's choice for PM. A labour Minister who has just climbed Everest during the recess door to door in six days! He also happens to be someone I've never heard of....
Can I recommend to you all a thoroughly interesting 45 minute conversation between Polanski and James Medway, one of the economists I respect most: https://pca.st/episode/aa464011-8ea3-4f3f-8903-0cef76bf3481. Even if Polanski is not your cup of tea (and he isn't mine economically), Meadway is both very intelligent and an excellent communicator.
Two points, a trigger warning and a question: 1. One of the things I respect most about Meadway is that, almost uniquely amongst left-wing economists, he engages with the reality of the power of the bond markets in the UK, resisting the simplistic 'just borrow more' that Polanski wants to hear. 2. Meadway laces his conversation about economics with an understanding of the current and likely future impacts of climate change. At a time when it feels like everyone has just stopped talking about this, that's really refreshing.
The trigger warning: Meadway was economic adviser to McDonnell when he was Shadow Chancellor. If your thinking goes McDonnell=Corbyn=Antisemitism=Evil, maybe spend your scarce 45 mins elsewhere. But if you're interested in a coherent left-wing critique of our economic system it's worth your time.
The question: particularly for @Luckyguy1983 as I know you have views on this, but also for any right of centre person interested in economics - what do you make of Meadway's arguments (first 10 mins of the podcast) about how the BoE deals with its ownership of government debt?
The fact everyone has stopped talking about it shows just how fickle and faddish most public opinion is.
Trump has blocked it on the Right and the Left has decided that Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience.
I will still talk about climate change, but I have asymptotically approached my personal limit on the number of times I am willing to have the same fruitless "debate" with people who deny the science.
As fruitless internet debates go it has nearly a 15 year head start on Brexit, for example.
I think it's more that the debate is effectively over. Very few people continue to deny it exists, or that humans are responsible for it. You still get people like Casino_Royale who think it's just some culture war game, but the data is becoming metronomic - we're about to declare this year our hottest year on record (again). I think we all understand that with Trump any debate/campaign for mitigation is fruitless until we get a sane Thatcher-type figure on the right again.
At some point we are going to need to have a serious conversation about adaptation. That's what so pathetic about those people who suggest we can't stop it happening - fine, so where's the big plan for 3 degrees+?
On the domestic front, we have nobody building any water infrastructure, and a virtual ban on dredging for the last 20-25 years, due to EU habitat legislation, then we blame the resulting summer droughts and winter floods on climate change.
I don't think it is included in the above - one of our basic planning policies since about 2010 has been that surface water runoff from a development should be no more than the pre-existing site - that's where all our balancing ponds come from. The last one of these I did required a preliminary design as part of Outline Permission, required to establish that the site was suitable for development; it was done by Mott McDonald and came to around £250 per potential housing unit just for the preliminary design.
The Thames Tideway Tunnel, which came online last year, was about £5 billion on its own.
That's all water infrastructure, as is investment in sewerage treatment, canal and river maintenance, and the rest.
That is a fair response to a point I made that included hyperbole but was still an important one.
There have been no major reservoirs built for over 30 years - the last one (there are some being built now) was completed in 1992. At the same time, the population has risen by 11 million.
I find that staggering, and it makes me extremely cynical when people panic about our weather conditions.
In general I'd argue that building more reservoirs should be the last resort, as it is a 'tailpipe' solution. Reduction of demand should come first, just as reduction of energy demand should come before building more power stations or windmills or solar farms. So for me that means measures such as leak reduction and 100% water meters, which apply the market mechanism and themselves generate a reduction of 10-12% in water usage, before we spend hundreds of millions on new reservoirs.
I think one of the unforeseen problems of the last budget will be caused by the unbundling of insulation etc programmes from energy bills - it can now be seen and will be far easier to target in political debate. The programme has been very successful for 15 years doing basics such as loft insulation, until the current one is under severe question - when the programme has been doing more complex installations (eg external wall insulation) with inadequate standards / supervision.
I am sure you would argue that - I would argue the opposite. Your argument leads to the British economy where it now is - mine leads to the Chinese economy where it now is. Abundant and cheap energy is a pre-requisite for any prosperous society, and is the lifeblood of human progress.
More specifically, having a deliberate policy of failing to build sufficient reservoirs, and instead blame the public for water shortages - encouraging them to water their gardens less, even to shower less (truly revolting) and take other punitive measures to combat 'water shortages' (when Winter floods will be along soon) is simply gaslighting.
I admit I just don't see that as a viable argument. I think you are assuming a zero-sum game, which is not the case. I don't see how a concept of blame applies.
Achieving the same outcome using fewer resources is a simple increase in efficiency. How is that not a benefit.
Why should we want to use 25% more water (or electricity) than necessary? Would you argue against reduced fuel consumption in a motor vehicle on the same basis?
The point about reservoirs is that if water consumption is reduced, fewer reservoirs is not "insufficient"; it changes the definition of "sufficient" to be a smaller quantity.
To turn the question around, why should we waste scarce resources on building unnecessary reservoirs or power stations?
For a specific example on water, current use in Denmark is around 105l per person per day, compared to 130-140l in England. Denmark does not seem to have an economy on its knees, and is noticeably prosperous.
Because water is not scarce. It is especially unscarce in the UK. It is an abundant resource that is there to be enjoyed and used. The idea of convincing the public that it is running out and that they are showering too long or gardening too much is a despicable perversion of the truth that would mystify and appall our ancestors.
Chronic mismanagement may get us to water shortages, but it certainly shouldn't be on the cards.
And we really really shouldn't be operating things at the bare minimum level in an any case, that's not very sustainable if any problems ever emerge.
Yes. A sensible safety margin means that a drought has to be more severe to cause serious difficulties.
Indeed, if you're trying to adapt to a world with more extreme weather phenomenon, then more reservoirs seems about the most sensible possible first step to do for that.
The lack of investment shows that for all the talk, our politicians are not remotely taking the climate seriously.
Yes, all true.
Although there are a variety of different approaches you might want to take. A domestic greywater system - to collect rainwater from your roof to use to flush toilets - seems like a good thing that would improve resilience.
It is standard in Japan that the sink you wash your hands in after using the toilet has an outlet that goes to fill the cistern.
Is it there, or somewhere else, where they have toilets with a hand washing basin *built into* the cistern?
I’m making myself the Ottolenghi lemon, anchovy, sardine and herb pasta I’ve described here before
When buying the lemons I noticed the Waitrose No1 unwaxed Sorrento lemons and couldn’t resist. They’re at least four inches long and two and a half wide. And they come with leaves
I can’t wait to taste them
We had roast lamb tonight, with roast (purple) potatoes, (yellow) carrots, beetroot and parsley root. (The beetroot and parsley root were their regular colours.)
I had chips with the relatives, and now we're watching the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures on BBC Four. We are so posh.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Most of these people knew about the tweets because they came up in ~2014 when he was nominated for some award and had his nomination withdrawn because of them. He then wrote a chapter for his book about them, variously contextualising/justifying/excusing/apologising for them. This book he then sent to British ministers.
So, many people did know, and considered it water under the bridge.
I’m kind of despairing at the news about Mr Abd El Fattah. It suggests that the entirety of government machinery is perpetuating a hoax on the wider public.
Although I understand Abd El Fattah is a noted dissident from a celebrated family of dissidents, he ought not to have passed the Fit and Proper test for citizenship. And it beggars belief that almost the entire political class, from both legacy mainstream political parties, campaigned so strongly for his release when his social media activity was always publicly available.
Brass Eye. Cake.
Nothing has changed - any bandwagon that is superficially attractive will get jumped on.
I’ve mentioned before getting an MP enthusiastic about growing peanuts in Africa to make oil for ZEV. After 10 minutes conversation he was ready to take it to the Minister. Wish I had been there for that.
When Brass Eye was made, it was still generally assumed that while backbench MPs and celebrities might be a bit gullible, there were serious people behind the scenes who knew what they were doing.
Now it seems as though the entire state has been taken in, and to add insult to injury, is directly funding the hoaxters who are busy making fools of us.
You raise an interesting question about just how much the State itself is funding the legion of charities who then insist on new measures to constrain, emasculate and otherwise siphon more monies from the State.
Indeed it might be be of the main self-perpetuating activities of the “elite”, with both left and right wing flavours.
Elon has been talking about this for most of 2025 to general heckles and finger wagging.
Regrettably, and based on my serving of the board of one charity, I’ve come to the conclusion that a great deal of charitable activity is essentially bollocks, if not outright grift.
Dunno about grift or malice, but expecting charities to do the good things society wants is playing on easy mode.
Most of the wicked problems in society are the ones about tradeoffs; which of these two good things should we prefer, or which of these two bad things should we reluctantly accept for now?
Charities are programmed, required even, to ignore tradeoffs. They have a charitable purpose, and they are duty-bound to do that as much as they can, no matter what the external consequences are. Much like that imaginary robot that keeps making paperclips, even if it ends up destroying human civilization to do so.
Those tradeoffs are the stuff of government and politics. But we've decided to deny their existence, which is one of the underlying causes of... all of this.
Agreed. People give to things that sound good, but aren't necessarily the best use of the money. Charities can be closer to the ground and better able to target help, but they can also be run by well-meaning but incompetent amateurs, or they can be huge organisations that are super efficient or huge organisations that are not!
I’m kind of despairing at the news about Mr Abd El Fattah. It suggests that the entirety of government machinery is perpetuating a hoax on the wider public.
Although I understand Abd El Fattah is a noted dissident from a celebrated family of dissidents, he ought not to have passed the Fit and Proper test for citizenship. And it beggars belief that almost the entire political class, from both legacy mainstream political parties, campaigned so strongly for his release when his social media activity was always publicly available.
Brass Eye. Cake.
Nothing has changed - any bandwagon that is superficially attractive will get jumped on.
I’ve mentioned before getting an MP enthusiastic about growing peanuts in Africa to make oil for ZEV. After 10 minutes conversation he was ready to take it to the Minister. Wish I had been there for that.
When Brass Eye was made, it was still generally assumed that while backbench MPs and celebrities might be a bit gullible, there were serious people behind the scenes who knew what they were doing.
Now it seems as though the entire state has been taken in, and to add insult to injury, is directly funding the hoaxters who are busy making fools of us.
You raise an interesting question about just how much the State itself is funding the legion of charities who then insist on new measures to constrain, emasculate and otherwise siphon more monies from the State.
Indeed it might be be of the main self-perpetuating activities of the “elite”, with both left and right wing flavours.
Elon has been talking about this for most of 2025 to general heckles and finger wagging.
Regrettably, and based on my serving of the board of one charity, I’ve come to the conclusion that a great deal of charitable activity is essentially bollocks, if not outright grift.
Dunno about grift or malice, but expecting charities to do the good things society wants is playing on easy mode.
Most of the wicked problems in society are the ones about tradeoffs; which of these two good things should we prefer, or which of these two bad things should we reluctantly accept for now?
Charities are programmed, required even, to ignore tradeoffs. They have a charitable purpose, and they are duty-bound to do that as much as they can, no matter what the external consequences are. Much like that imaginary robot that keeps making paperclips, even if it ends up destroying human civilization to do so.
Those tradeoffs are the stuff of government and politics. But we've decided to deny their existence, which is one of the underlying causes of... all of this.
That's a bit unfair. In principle charities democratise that decision-making. When you choose to donate to the hedgehog sanctuary instead of the Alzheimer's research charity, you are choosing to make the tradeoff to help hedgehogs at the expense of people with Alzheimer's.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Apparently he is a British citizen so no amount of checks would have made a difference. Apart from that if fifteen year old tweets made a difference there are several here who have said very much worse. I don't want to be a killjoy but sentences such as 'I would hang the lot of them' or 'I have been keeping Thai schoolgirls in pocket money' have in the past been commonplace.
PB is very busy this evening. Are we all bored of Xmas then?
I am feeling well enough to dispute on PB.com, but not well enough to clean the kitchen or read a book, and my wife has the TV in the half of the house she is quarantining in. (We know she has the flu, and we believe I have a different respiratory virus picked up in London)
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Apparently he is a British citizen so no amount of checks would have made a difference. Apart from that if fifteen year old tweets made a difference there are several here who have said very much worse. I don't want to be a killjoy but sentences such as 'I would hang the lot of them' or 'I have been keeping Thai schoolgirls in pocket money' have in the past been commonplace.
Would have stopped Starmer from making a complete tit out of himself again, though.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Was he not, under the prevailing law at the time, simply entitled to citizenship as his mother was a citizen ? The guy is at the shitty end of the spectrum, but the bar for revoking citizenship is rightly an extremely high one.
I don't get the debate over this. It seems largely performative.
I’m kind of despairing at the news about Mr Abd El Fattah. It suggests that the entirety of government machinery is perpetuating a hoax on the wider public.
Although I understand Abd El Fattah is a noted dissident from a celebrated family of dissidents, he ought not to have passed the Fit and Proper test for citizenship. And it beggars belief that almost the entire political class, from both legacy mainstream political parties, campaigned so strongly for his release when his social media activity was always publicly available.
Brass Eye. Cake.
Nothing has changed - any bandwagon that is superficially attractive will get jumped on.
I’ve mentioned before getting an MP enthusiastic about growing peanuts in Africa to make oil for ZEV. After 10 minutes conversation he was ready to take it to the Minister. Wish I had been there for that.
When Brass Eye was made, it was still generally assumed that while backbench MPs and celebrities might be a bit gullible, there were serious people behind the scenes who knew what they were doing.
Now it seems as though the entire state has been taken in, and to add insult to injury, is directly funding the hoaxters who are busy making fools of us.
You raise an interesting question about just how much the State itself is funding the legion of charities who then insist on new measures to constrain, emasculate and otherwise siphon more monies from the State.
Indeed it might be be of the main self-perpetuating activities of the “elite”, with both left and right wing flavours.
Elon has been talking about this for most of 2025 to general heckles and finger wagging.
Regrettably, and based on my serving of the board of one charity, I’ve come to the conclusion that a great deal of charitable activity is essentially bollocks, if not outright grift.
Dunno about grift or malice, but expecting charities to do the good things society wants is playing on easy mode.
Most of the wicked problems in society are the ones about tradeoffs; which of these two good things should we prefer, or which of these two bad things should we reluctantly accept for now?
Charities are programmed, required even, to ignore tradeoffs. They have a charitable purpose, and they are duty-bound to do that as much as they can, no matter what the external consequences are. Much like that imaginary robot that keeps making paperclips, even if it ends up destroying human civilization to do so.
Those tradeoffs are the stuff of government and politics. But we've decided to deny their existence, which is one of the underlying causes of... all of this.
That's a bit unfair. In principle charities democratise that decision-making. When you choose to donate to the hedgehog sanctuary instead of the Alzheimer's research charity, you are choosing to make the tradeoff to help hedgehogs at the expense of people with Alzheimer's.
Remember those polls where they ask people how tax is spent, and the public are wildly off. You have the reverse problem with charities. Charities get funded based on minimal understanding of what problems there are or what solutions are (cost) effective, among all sorts of other factors.
I've been paid from cancer charity funding. Breast cancer, as an example, gets massively more funding than bowel cancer. Breast cancer is a common cancer and does warrant attention, but it gets way more than bowel cancer, another common cancer that warrants attention.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Was he not, under the prevailing law at the time, simply entitled to citizenship as his mother was a citizen ? The guy is at the shitty end of the spectrum, but the bar for revoking citizenship is rightly an extremely high one.
I don't get the debate over this. It seems largely performative.
He had to apply for it, and there is a Fit and Proper test which is supposed to be assessed.
I am not calling for the revocation of his citizenship, I don’t believe in that (nor for Shamima Begum). But the quid pro quo is that I expect authorities to take reasonable, UK-protecting, precaution when granting nationality, expel ally in what are after all modestly tenuous circumstances.
The man has never been to been the UK, so far as I can tell.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Was he not, under the prevailing law at the time, simply entitled to citizenship as his mother was a citizen ? The guy is at the shitty end of the spectrum, but the bar for revoking citizenship is rightly an extremely high one.
I don't get the debate over this. It seems largely performative.
Agreed. Revoking citizenship over a tweet is an utterly barmy suggestion. The man should of course be condemned for his views, but deportation? Ridiculous.
Can I recommend to you all a thoroughly interesting 45 minute conversation between Polanski and James Medway, one of the economists I respect most: https://pca.st/episode/aa464011-8ea3-4f3f-8903-0cef76bf3481. Even if Polanski is not your cup of tea (and he isn't mine economically), Meadway is both very intelligent and an excellent communicator.
Two points, a trigger warning and a question: 1. One of the things I respect most about Meadway is that, almost uniquely amongst left-wing economists, he engages with the reality of the power of the bond markets in the UK, resisting the simplistic 'just borrow more' that Polanski wants to hear. 2. Meadway laces his conversation about economics with an understanding of the current and likely future impacts of climate change. At a time when it feels like everyone has just stopped talking about this, that's really refreshing.
The trigger warning: Meadway was economic adviser to McDonnell when he was Shadow Chancellor. If your thinking goes McDonnell=Corbyn=Antisemitism=Evil, maybe spend your scarce 45 mins elsewhere. But if you're interested in a coherent left-wing critique of our economic system it's worth your time.
The question: particularly for @Luckyguy1983 as I know you have views on this, but also for any right of centre person interested in economics - what do you make of Meadway's arguments (first 10 mins of the podcast) about how the BoE deals with its ownership of government debt?
The fact everyone has stopped talking about it shows just how fickle and faddish most public opinion is.
Trump has blocked it on the Right and the Left has decided that Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience.
I will still talk about climate change, but I have asymptotically approached my personal limit on the number of times I am willing to have the same fruitless "debate" with people who deny the science.
As fruitless internet debates go it has nearly a 15 year head start on Brexit, for example.
I think it's more that the debate is effectively over. Very few people continue to deny it exists, or that humans are responsible for it. You still get people like Casino_Royale who think it's just some culture war game, but the data is becoming metronomic - we're about to declare this year our hottest year on record (again). I think we all understand that with Trump any debate/campaign for mitigation is fruitless until we get a sane Thatcher-type figure on the right again.
At some point we are going to need to have a serious conversation about adaptation. That's what so pathetic about those people who suggest we can't stop it happening - fine, so where's the big plan for 3 degrees+?
On the domestic front, we have nobody building any water infrastructure, and a virtual ban on dredging for the last 20-25 years, due to EU habitat legislation, then we blame the resulting summer droughts and winter floods on climate change.
I don't think it is included in the above - one of our basic planning policies since about 2010 has been that surface water runoff from a development should be no more than the pre-existing site - that's where all our balancing ponds come from. The last one of these I did required a preliminary design as part of Outline Permission, required to establish that the site was suitable for development; it was done by Mott McDonald and came to around £250 per potential housing unit just for the preliminary design.
The Thames Tideway Tunnel, which came online last year, was about £5 billion on its own.
That's all water infrastructure, as is investment in sewerage treatment, canal and river maintenance, and the rest.
That is a fair response to a point I made that included hyperbole but was still an important one.
There have been no major reservoirs built for over 30 years - the last one (there are some being built now) was completed in 1992. At the same time, the population has risen by 11 million.
I find that staggering, and it makes me extremely cynical when people panic about our weather conditions.
In general I'd argue that building more reservoirs should be the last resort, as it is a 'tailpipe' solution. Reduction of demand should come first, just as reduction of energy demand should come before building more power stations or windmills or solar farms. So for me that means measures such as leak reduction and 100% water meters, which apply the market mechanism and themselves generate a reduction of 10-12% in water usage, before we spend hundreds of millions on new reservoirs.
I think one of the unforeseen problems of the last budget will be caused by the unbundling of insulation etc programmes from energy bills - it can now be seen and will be far easier to target in political debate. The programme has been very successful for 15 years doing basics such as loft insulation, until the current one is under severe question - when the programme has been doing more complex installations (eg external wall insulation) with inadequate standards / supervision.
I am sure you would argue that - I would argue the opposite. Your argument leads to the British economy where it now is - mine leads to the Chinese economy where it now is. Abundant and cheap energy is a pre-requisite for any prosperous society, and is the lifeblood of human progress.
More specifically, having a deliberate policy of failing to build sufficient reservoirs, and instead blame the public for water shortages - encouraging them to water their gardens less, even to shower less (truly revolting) and take other punitive measures to combat 'water shortages' (when Winter floods will be along soon) is simply gaslighting.
I admit I just don't see that as a viable argument. I think you are assuming a zero-sum game, which is not the case. I don't see how a concept of blame applies.
Achieving the same outcome using fewer resources is a simple increase in efficiency. How is that not a benefit.
Why should we want to use 25% more water (or electricity) than necessary? Would you argue against reduced fuel consumption in a motor vehicle on the same basis?
The point about reservoirs is that if water consumption is reduced, fewer reservoirs is not "insufficient"; it changes the definition of "sufficient" to be a smaller quantity.
To turn the question around, why should we waste scarce resources on building unnecessary reservoirs or power stations?
For a specific example on water, current use in Denmark is around 105l per person per day, compared to 130-140l in England. Denmark does not seem to have an economy on its knees, and is noticeably prosperous.
Because water is not scarce. It is especially unscarce in the UK. It is an abundant resource that is there to be enjoyed and used. The idea of convincing the public that it is running out and that they are showering too long or gardening too much is a despicable perversion of the truth that would mystify and appall our ancestors.
Chronic mismanagement may get us to water shortages, but it certainly shouldn't be on the cards.
And we really really shouldn't be operating things at the bare minimum level in an any case, that's not very sustainable if any problems ever emerge.
Yes. A sensible safety margin means that a drought has to be more severe to cause serious difficulties.
Indeed, if you're trying to adapt to a world with more extreme weather phenomenon, then more reservoirs seems about the most sensible possible first step to do for that.
The lack of investment shows that for all the talk, our politicians are not remotely taking the climate seriously.
Yes, all true.
Although there are a variety of different approaches you might want to take. A domestic greywater system - to collect rainwater from your roof to use to flush toilets - seems like a good thing that would improve resilience.
It is standard in Japan that the sink you wash your hands in after using the toilet has an outlet that goes to fill the cistern.
You can get them from B&Q. A very good solution for really tight separate loos.
Can I recommend to you all a thoroughly interesting 45 minute conversation between Polanski and James Medway, one of the economists I respect most: https://pca.st/episode/aa464011-8ea3-4f3f-8903-0cef76bf3481. Even if Polanski is not your cup of tea (and he isn't mine economically), Meadway is both very intelligent and an excellent communicator.
Two points, a trigger warning and a question: 1. One of the things I respect most about Meadway is that, almost uniquely amongst left-wing economists, he engages with the reality of the power of the bond markets in the UK, resisting the simplistic 'just borrow more' that Polanski wants to hear. 2. Meadway laces his conversation about economics with an understanding of the current and likely future impacts of climate change. At a time when it feels like everyone has just stopped talking about this, that's really refreshing.
The trigger warning: Meadway was economic adviser to McDonnell when he was Shadow Chancellor. If your thinking goes McDonnell=Corbyn=Antisemitism=Evil, maybe spend your scarce 45 mins elsewhere. But if you're interested in a coherent left-wing critique of our economic system it's worth your time.
The question: particularly for @Luckyguy1983 as I know you have views on this, but also for any right of centre person interested in economics - what do you make of Meadway's arguments (first 10 mins of the podcast) about how the BoE deals with its ownership of government debt?
The fact everyone has stopped talking about it shows just how fickle and faddish most public opinion is.
Trump has blocked it on the Right and the Left has decided that Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience.
I will still talk about climate change, but I have asymptotically approached my personal limit on the number of times I am willing to have the same fruitless "debate" with people who deny the science.
As fruitless internet debates go it has nearly a 15 year head start on Brexit, for example.
I think it's more that the debate is effectively over. Very few people continue to deny it exists, or that humans are responsible for it. You still get people like Casino_Royale who think it's just some culture war game, but the data is becoming metronomic - we're about to declare this year our hottest year on record (again).
Er, sod off, old boy.
I've never said anything but climate change is a real thing on here, and have been remarkably consistent in saying that for decades. I also regularly cite Thatcher as one of the first major political leaders to draw attention to the issue, because she understood the science. And a reason why those on the Right shouldn't view climate change as a secret Lefty plot.
Take that back please.
Nope - you suggested that "Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience" - as if caring about the environment is simply a fad for the left. From my experience, concerns for Gaza and the consequences of climate change are both deeply held - and can be at the same time.
I'm sure your personal concern about climate change is sincere - perhaps consider that is also the case for those you would normally consider your political opposites.
People who desire to embrace clean technologies to transition away from dirty ones care about the environment.
People who desire us not to extract domestic oil and gas but to burn as many imports as desired instead do not.
People who wish to prevent others from having holidays or living their lives do not.
People who wish to use the mantra of the environment to further their own agenda, whether it be smashing capitalism or pushing veganism or any other bullshit do not.
There is nothing wrong with caring about the environment and we should seek to transition to clean technologies to do so, the problem is too many with a hate-filled agenda they try to sneak past others in the name of the environment.
Moving past climate change denial to climatr change bargaining:
"Climate change is happenning but we don't need to take serious action, we can carry on much the same"
Embracing clean technologies is taking serious action, which enables us to carry on much the same, yes.
Cutting off our nose to spite our face is not taking serious action and won't impact global emissions as the rest of the world isn't stupid enough to do that.
It's the tragedy of the commons: if everyone else has your attitude, the problem never gets fixed. However, fortunately, by and large, that hasn't happened and we have had good international cooperation with countries working together. Our net zero plans have been pretty similar to other countries'. Until Trump came along and blew a whole in the US position, that is.
Wrong, if people have your attitude, the problem never gets fixed.
With my attitude, we embrace clean technologies and fix the problems.
Cutting off our nose and saying "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat" or any other bullshit does diddly squat to fix the problems.
Embracing clean technologies does. Once the problem is fixed, others can copy our solutions, and we can copy theirs.
Invest in science and technology and research, don't cut consumption.
We may be talking at cross-purposes then -- my apologies. I'm not saying "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat". I am rejecting the idea that we shouldn't do things beause we're a small part of global emissions or because other countries are supposedly not doing the same.
Then we are, because I said we should fix the problems by investing in clean technologies to replace dirty ones, which enables us to carry on as before, but better.
Investing in clean tech has the advantage that once clean tech is developed, others copy it, and we can copy theirs too, so win/win.
Cutting off our nose to spite our face does nothing to fix the actual problems, but is the desired outcome of some people. That things do not go on as before, that we stop consuming, that we stop driving, that we stop travelling. Well that's never happening, what we need is clean travel, clean tech, clean energy, and bountiful amounts of it.
I think you're railing against a straw man there.
Sadly, I'm not. I'm railing against a view repeatedly expressed here, including earlier by Foxy (not for the first time I might add).
There is sadly an attitude amongst some that believing that technology will solve our problems is somehow wishful or magical thinking and that we need to cut things instead.
Well to invoke Arthur C Clarke, any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic - and that is precisely what we need to tackle climate change. Invest in clean technologies, don't tell people what they can and can't do.
No-one, apart from you, has said "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat". Others have talked about government policies that sometimes restrict what people do in certain ways. You are strawmanning what is being said.
We should definitely invest in clean technologies -- and are -- but governments also often tell people what not to do, e.g. abolishing leaded petrol. This can be a successful way of intervening. Investing in clean technologies alone won't work.
But yes, besides charities, government bodies, the Climate Change Committee, national and devolved governments, councils and universities, besides them, its just me. Only me.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Was he not, under the prevailing law at the time, simply entitled to citizenship as his mother was a citizen ? The guy is at the shitty end of the spectrum, but the bar for revoking citizenship is rightly an extremely high one.
I don't get the debate over this. It seems largely performative.
Of course it's performative. It stared with Robert Jenrick.
The more interesting question is whether Energetic Bob has done more damage to his side or to his opponents. (Yes, I know that the answer to that is that he has mostly had zero impact because it's Twixtmas and sane people aren't paying any attention, but you know what I mean.)
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Was he not, under the prevailing law at the time, simply entitled to citizenship as his mother was a citizen ? The guy is at the shitty end of the spectrum, but the bar for revoking citizenship is rightly an extremely high one.
I don't get the debate over this. It seems largely performative.
Yes, there's much to worry about the extent of powers regarding removal of citizenship, but it still is not easy and simply being a shitty person surely would not qualify. If there's a debate about the broadness of citizenship laws, fine, but that can't change the past. So unless it is the case that he was not entitled after all and things were done improperly, the debate seems to have gotten a bit beyond its justification to me.
Can I recommend to you all a thoroughly interesting 45 minute conversation between Polanski and James Medway, one of the economists I respect most: https://pca.st/episode/aa464011-8ea3-4f3f-8903-0cef76bf3481. Even if Polanski is not your cup of tea (and he isn't mine economically), Meadway is both very intelligent and an excellent communicator.
Two points, a trigger warning and a question: 1. One of the things I respect most about Meadway is that, almost uniquely amongst left-wing economists, he engages with the reality of the power of the bond markets in the UK, resisting the simplistic 'just borrow more' that Polanski wants to hear. 2. Meadway laces his conversation about economics with an understanding of the current and likely future impacts of climate change. At a time when it feels like everyone has just stopped talking about this, that's really refreshing.
The trigger warning: Meadway was economic adviser to McDonnell when he was Shadow Chancellor. If your thinking goes McDonnell=Corbyn=Antisemitism=Evil, maybe spend your scarce 45 mins elsewhere. But if you're interested in a coherent left-wing critique of our economic system it's worth your time.
The question: particularly for @Luckyguy1983 as I know you have views on this, but also for any right of centre person interested in economics - what do you make of Meadway's arguments (first 10 mins of the podcast) about how the BoE deals with its ownership of government debt?
The fact everyone has stopped talking about it shows just how fickle and faddish most public opinion is.
Trump has blocked it on the Right and the Left has decided that Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience.
I will still talk about climate change, but I have asymptotically approached my personal limit on the number of times I am willing to have the same fruitless "debate" with people who deny the science.
As fruitless internet debates go it has nearly a 15 year head start on Brexit, for example.
I think it's more that the debate is effectively over. Very few people continue to deny it exists, or that humans are responsible for it. You still get people like Casino_Royale who think it's just some culture war game, but the data is becoming metronomic - we're about to declare this year our hottest year on record (again). I think we all understand that with Trump any debate/campaign for mitigation is fruitless until we get a sane Thatcher-type figure on the right again.
At some point we are going to need to have a serious conversation about adaptation. That's what so pathetic about those people who suggest we can't stop it happening - fine, so where's the big plan for 3 degrees+?
On the domestic front, we have nobody building any water infrastructure, and a virtual ban on dredging for the last 20-25 years, due to EU habitat legislation, then we blame the resulting summer droughts and winter floods on climate change.
I don't think it is included in the above - one of our basic planning policies since about 2010 has been that surface water runoff from a development should be no more than the pre-existing site - that's where all our balancing ponds come from. The last one of these I did required a preliminary design as part of Outline Permission, required to establish that the site was suitable for development; it was done by Mott McDonald and came to around £250 per potential housing unit just for the preliminary design.
The Thames Tideway Tunnel, which came online last year, was about £5 billion on its own.
That's all water infrastructure, as is investment in sewerage treatment, canal and river maintenance, and the rest.
That is a fair response to a point I made that included hyperbole but was still an important one.
There have been no major reservoirs built for over 30 years - the last one (there are some being built now) was completed in 1992. At the same time, the population has risen by 11 million.
I find that staggering, and it makes me extremely cynical when people panic about our weather conditions.
In general I'd argue that building more reservoirs should be the last resort, as it is a 'tailpipe' solution. Reduction of demand should come first, just as reduction of energy demand should come before building more power stations or windmills or solar farms. So for me that means measures such as leak reduction and 100% water meters, which apply the market mechanism and themselves generate a reduction of 10-12% in water usage, before we spend hundreds of millions on new reservoirs.
I think one of the unforeseen problems of the last budget will be caused by the unbundling of insulation etc programmes from energy bills - it can now be seen and will be far easier to target in political debate. The programme has been very successful for 15 years doing basics such as loft insulation, until the current one is under severe question - when the programme has been doing more complex installations (eg external wall insulation) with inadequate standards / supervision.
I am sure you would argue that - I would argue the opposite. Your argument leads to the British economy where it now is - mine leads to the Chinese economy where it now is. Abundant and cheap energy is a pre-requisite for any prosperous society, and is the lifeblood of human progress.
More specifically, having a deliberate policy of failing to build sufficient reservoirs, and instead blame the public for water shortages - encouraging them to water their gardens less, even to shower less (truly revolting) and take other punitive measures to combat 'water shortages' (when Winter floods will be along soon) is simply gaslighting.
I admit I just don't see that as a viable argument. I think you are assuming a zero-sum game, which is not the case. I don't see how a concept of blame applies.
Achieving the same outcome using fewer resources is a simple increase in efficiency. How is that not a benefit.
Why should we want to use 25% more water (or electricity) than necessary? Would you argue against reduced fuel consumption in a motor vehicle on the same basis?
The point about reservoirs is that if water consumption is reduced, fewer reservoirs is not "insufficient"; it changes the definition of "sufficient" to be a smaller quantity.
To turn the question around, why should we waste scarce resources on building unnecessary reservoirs or power stations?
For a specific example on water, current use in Denmark is around 105l per person per day, compared to 130-140l in England. Denmark does not seem to have an economy on its knees, and is noticeably prosperous.
Because water is not scarce. It is especially unscarce in the UK. It is an abundant resource that is there to be enjoyed and used. The idea of convincing the public that it is running out and that they are showering too long or gardening too much is a despicable perversion of the truth that would mystify and appall our ancestors.
Chronic mismanagement may get us to water shortages, but it certainly shouldn't be on the cards.
And we really really shouldn't be operating things at the bare minimum level in an any case, that's not very sustainable if any problems ever emerge.
Yes. A sensible safety margin means that a drought has to be more severe to cause serious difficulties.
Indeed, if you're trying to adapt to a world with more extreme weather phenomenon, then more reservoirs seems about the most sensible possible first step to do for that.
The lack of investment shows that for all the talk, our politicians are not remotely taking the climate seriously.
Yes, all true.
Although there are a variety of different approaches you might want to take. A domestic greywater system - to collect rainwater from your roof to use to flush toilets - seems like a good thing that would improve resilience.
It is standard in Japan that the sink you wash your hands in after using the toilet has an outlet that goes to fill the cistern.
You can get them from B&Q. A very good solution for really tight separate loos.
I’m kind of despairing at the news about Mr Abd El Fattah. It suggests that the entirety of government machinery is perpetuating a hoax on the wider public.
Although I understand Abd El Fattah is a noted dissident from a celebrated family of dissidents, he ought not to have passed the Fit and Proper test for citizenship. And it beggars belief that almost the entire political class, from both legacy mainstream political parties, campaigned so strongly for his release when his social media activity was always publicly available.
Brass Eye. Cake.
Nothing has changed - any bandwagon that is superficially attractive will get jumped on.
I’ve mentioned before getting an MP enthusiastic about growing peanuts in Africa to make oil for ZEV. After 10 minutes conversation he was ready to take it to the Minister. Wish I had been there for that.
When Brass Eye was made, it was still generally assumed that while backbench MPs and celebrities might be a bit gullible, there were serious people behind the scenes who knew what they were doing.
Now it seems as though the entire state has been taken in, and to add insult to injury, is directly funding the hoaxters who are busy making fools of us.
You raise an interesting question about just how much the State itself is funding the legion of charities who then insist on new measures to constrain, emasculate and otherwise siphon more monies from the State.
Indeed it might be be of the main self-perpetuating activities of the “elite”, with both left and right wing flavours.
Elon has been talking about this for most of 2025 to general heckles and finger wagging.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Most of these people knew about the tweets because they came up in ~2014 when he was nominated for some award and had his nomination withdrawn because of them. He then wrote a chapter for his book about them, variously contextualising/justifying/excusing/apologising for them. This book he then sent to British ministers.
So, many people did know, and considered it water under the bridge.
As I understand it the ECHR changed the rules on this and he had the automatic right due to his Mother being born here
It certainly has caught out politicians across the parties, apart from Reform, but short of changing or leaving the ECHR then Starmer/ Cooper are powerless to intervene
I would just comment that his tweets were vile and nobody should attempt to condone or excuse them
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Was he not, under the prevailing law at the time, simply entitled to citizenship as his mother was a citizen ? The guy is at the shitty end of the spectrum, but the bar for revoking citizenship is rightly an extremely high one.
I don't get the debate over this. It seems largely performative.
As far as I can tell he was entitled to apply for it, but he was not entitled to automatically get it.
Even once got he was not entitled to consular assistance either.
I’m kind of despairing at the news about Mr Abd El Fattah. It suggests that the entirety of government machinery is perpetuating a hoax on the wider public.
Although I understand Abd El Fattah is a noted dissident from a celebrated family of dissidents, he ought not to have passed the Fit and Proper test for citizenship. And it beggars belief that almost the entire political class, from both legacy mainstream political parties, campaigned so strongly for his release when his social media activity was always publicly available.
Brass Eye. Cake.
Nothing has changed - any bandwagon that is superficially attractive will get jumped on.
I’ve mentioned before getting an MP enthusiastic about growing peanuts in Africa to make oil for ZEV. After 10 minutes conversation he was ready to take it to the Minister. Wish I had been there for that.
When Brass Eye was made, it was still generally assumed that while backbench MPs and celebrities might be a bit gullible, there were serious people behind the scenes who knew what they were doing.
Now it seems as though the entire state has been taken in, and to add insult to injury, is directly funding the hoaxters who are busy making fools of us.
You raise an interesting question about just how much the State itself is funding the legion of charities who then insist on new measures to constrain, emasculate and otherwise siphon more monies from the State.
Indeed it might be be of the main self-perpetuating activities of the “elite”, with both left and right wing flavours.
Elon has been talking about this for most of 2025 to general heckles and finger wagging.
Regrettably, and based on my serving of the board of one charity, I’ve come to the conclusion that a great deal of charitable activity is essentially bollocks, if not outright grift.
Dunno about grift or malice, but expecting charities to do the good things society wants is playing on easy mode.
Most of the wicked problems in society are the ones about tradeoffs; which of these two good things should we prefer, or which of these two bad things should we reluctantly accept for now?
Charities are programmed, required even, to ignore tradeoffs. They have a charitable purpose, and they are duty-bound to do that as much as they can, no matter what the external consequences are. Much like that imaginary robot that keeps making paperclips, even if it ends up destroying human civilization to do so.
Those tradeoffs are the stuff of government and politics. But we've decided to deny their existence, which is one of the underlying causes of... all of this.
That's a bit unfair. In principle charities democratise that decision-making. When you choose to donate to the hedgehog sanctuary instead of the Alzheimer's research charity, you are choosing to make the tradeoff to help hedgehogs at the expense of people with Alzheimer's.
Remember those polls where they ask people how tax is spent, and the public are wildly off. You have the reverse problem with charities. Charities get funded based on minimal understanding of what problems there are or what solutions are (cost) effective, among all sorts of other factors.
I've been paid from cancer charity funding. Breast cancer, as an example, gets massively more funding than bowel cancer. Breast cancer is a common cancer and does warrant attention, but it gets way more than bowel cancer, another common cancer that warrants attention.
This is true, but ultimately I find that I have to trust that the collective judgement is better than my individual judgement.
And I think that the exercise of control that making a choice gives people is likely to make them willing to hand over more money in aggregate than if someone is making that choice for them.
I do recommend the Hawk Conservancy in Andover for a day out, and a charity to support, though birds of prey might be a bit of a niche concern.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Was he not, under the prevailing law at the time, simply entitled to citizenship as his mother was a citizen ? The guy is at the shitty end of the spectrum, but the bar for revoking citizenship is rightly an extremely high one.
I don't get the debate over this. It seems largely performative.
Yes, there's much to worry about the extent of powers regarding removal of citizenship, but it still is not easy and simply being a shitty person surely would not qualify. If there's a debate about the broadness of citizenship laws, fine, but that can't change the past. So unless it is the case that he was not entitled after all and things were done improperly, the debate seems to have gotten a bit beyond its justification to me.
I think the citizenship laws have probably changed since; it's hard to keep up.
But taking it away once granted is something that should only be done in the most extraordinary circumstances. Certainly not at the behest of some equally compromised shit like Farage.
PB is very busy this evening. Are we all bored of Xmas then?
I am feeling well enough to dispute on PB.com, but not well enough to clean the kitchen or read a book, and my wife has the TV in the half of the house she is quarantining in. (We know she has the flu, and we believe I have a different respiratory virus picked up in London)
I thought a major point people supported the campaign to free Alaa was because of his journey from vile tweets to 10 years in prison for standing up for the human rights of everybody to live in dignity whatever one’s faith, ethnicity, gender or sexuality.
Can I recommend to you all a thoroughly interesting 45 minute conversation between Polanski and James Medway, one of the economists I respect most: https://pca.st/episode/aa464011-8ea3-4f3f-8903-0cef76bf3481. Even if Polanski is not your cup of tea (and he isn't mine economically), Meadway is both very intelligent and an excellent communicator.
Two points, a trigger warning and a question: 1. One of the things I respect most about Meadway is that, almost uniquely amongst left-wing economists, he engages with the reality of the power of the bond markets in the UK, resisting the simplistic 'just borrow more' that Polanski wants to hear. 2. Meadway laces his conversation about economics with an understanding of the current and likely future impacts of climate change. At a time when it feels like everyone has just stopped talking about this, that's really refreshing.
The trigger warning: Meadway was economic adviser to McDonnell when he was Shadow Chancellor. If your thinking goes McDonnell=Corbyn=Antisemitism=Evil, maybe spend your scarce 45 mins elsewhere. But if you're interested in a coherent left-wing critique of our economic system it's worth your time.
The question: particularly for @Luckyguy1983 as I know you have views on this, but also for any right of centre person interested in economics - what do you make of Meadway's arguments (first 10 mins of the podcast) about how the BoE deals with its ownership of government debt?
The fact everyone has stopped talking about it shows just how fickle and faddish most public opinion is.
Trump has blocked it on the Right and the Left has decided that Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience.
I will still talk about climate change, but I have asymptotically approached my personal limit on the number of times I am willing to have the same fruitless "debate" with people who deny the science.
As fruitless internet debates go it has nearly a 15 year head start on Brexit, for example.
I think it's more that the debate is effectively over. Very few people continue to deny it exists, or that humans are responsible for it. You still get people like Casino_Royale who think it's just some culture war game, but the data is becoming metronomic - we're about to declare this year our hottest year on record (again).
Er, sod off, old boy.
I've never said anything but climate change is a real thing on here, and have been remarkably consistent in saying that for decades. I also regularly cite Thatcher as one of the first major political leaders to draw attention to the issue, because she understood the science. And a reason why those on the Right shouldn't view climate change as a secret Lefty plot.
Take that back please.
Nope - you suggested that "Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience" - as if caring about the environment is simply a fad for the left. From my experience, concerns for Gaza and the consequences of climate change are both deeply held - and can be at the same time.
I'm sure your personal concern about climate change is sincere - perhaps consider that is also the case for those you would normally consider your political opposites.
People who desire to embrace clean technologies to transition away from dirty ones care about the environment.
People who desire us not to extract domestic oil and gas but to burn as many imports as desired instead do not.
People who wish to prevent others from having holidays or living their lives do not.
People who wish to use the mantra of the environment to further their own agenda, whether it be smashing capitalism or pushing veganism or any other bullshit do not.
There is nothing wrong with caring about the environment and we should seek to transition to clean technologies to do so, the problem is too many with a hate-filled agenda they try to sneak past others in the name of the environment.
Moving past climate change denial to climatr change bargaining:
"Climate change is happenning but we don't need to take serious action, we can carry on much the same"
Embracing clean technologies is taking serious action, which enables us to carry on much the same, yes.
Cutting off our nose to spite our face is not taking serious action and won't impact global emissions as the rest of the world isn't stupid enough to do that.
It's the tragedy of the commons: if everyone else has your attitude, the problem never gets fixed. However, fortunately, by and large, that hasn't happened and we have had good international cooperation with countries working together. Our net zero plans have been pretty similar to other countries'. Until Trump came along and blew a whole in the US position, that is.
Wrong, if people have your attitude, the problem never gets fixed.
With my attitude, we embrace clean technologies and fix the problems.
Cutting off our nose and saying "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat" or any other bullshit does diddly squat to fix the problems.
Embracing clean technologies does. Once the problem is fixed, others can copy our solutions, and we can copy theirs.
Invest in science and technology and research, don't cut consumption.
We may be talking at cross-purposes then -- my apologies. I'm not saying "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat". I am rejecting the idea that we shouldn't do things beause we're a small part of global emissions or because other countries are supposedly not doing the same.
Then we are, because I said we should fix the problems by investing in clean technologies to replace dirty ones, which enables us to carry on as before, but better.
Investing in clean tech has the advantage that once clean tech is developed, others copy it, and we can copy theirs too, so win/win.
Cutting off our nose to spite our face does nothing to fix the actual problems, but is the desired outcome of some people. That things do not go on as before, that we stop consuming, that we stop driving, that we stop travelling. Well that's never happening, what we need is clean travel, clean tech, clean energy, and bountiful amounts of it.
I think you're railing against a straw man there.
Sadly, I'm not. I'm railing against a view repeatedly expressed here, including earlier by Foxy (not for the first time I might add).
There is sadly an attitude amongst some that believing that technology will solve our problems is somehow wishful or magical thinking and that we need to cut things instead.
Well to invoke Arthur C Clarke, any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic - and that is precisely what we need to tackle climate change. Invest in clean technologies, don't tell people what they can and can't do.
No-one, apart from you, has said "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat". Others have talked about government policies that sometimes restrict what people do in certain ways. You are strawmanning what is being said.
We should definitely invest in clean technologies -- and are -- but governments also often tell people what not to do, e.g. abolishing leaded petrol. This can be a successful way of intervening. Investing in clean technologies alone won't work.
But yes, besides charities, government bodies, the Climate Change Committee, national and devolved governments, councils and universities, besides them, its just me. Only me.
My apologies again. I meant to say no-one in this thread.
Reduction of demand should come first, just as reduction of energy demand should come before building more power stations or windmills or solar farms.
I do beg to differ, here. Demand reduction measures are an admission a country's energy policy has failed. Abundant, affordable energy has long been acknowledged to be a significant economic asset and social good. Now that we have multiple ways of generating power with little environmental impact, that should always be the priority.
Spending money on insulation schemes, to pick the example you mentioned, is, on a macro level, a complete waste of money. It's an extremely expensive way of reducing demand in one very specific area, without having enough scale to give any general benefits.
Spend that money on new generation facilities and overall supply improves, prices go down for everyone (presuming a free market) and it increases reliability in the system. Build enough and you end up with a surplus of supply, which attracts energy-intensive industries, providing jobs, and can bring opportunities to profit by supplying excess to countries with an energy shortfall.
We should be building wind farms, solar and SMRs as fast as possible. Having too much energy is always better than not having enough.
Could not agree more. This 100% is correct.
If energy is clean, then there's no environmental reason to demand less.
If energy is not clean, then there's no way to get to net zero.
Demand reduction achieves diddly squat and is unscientific gibberish to further hairshirt agendas.
Clean, abundant, cheap and well-used energy is the future.
I think efficiency is always a benefit, so I would support improved insulation, LED lighting, air fryers, etc, but when some people talk about demand reduction it sounds like rationing.
Efficiency is great, yes. I love my air fryer, and LED lights and so on and so forth.
But that is embracing newer technologies that are an improvement, not stepping backwards.
My air fryer cooks better than the oven, most days of the year. Christmas Day I cooked with the oven due to the scale of what was being cooked, but most other days the air fryer operates instead, cooking better and cheaper.
When people want to say "don't travel", or "sit in the cold", or "don't consume" then they're not seeking to either help the environment in a scientific manner, or improve matters for people, they're pushing a bonkers agenda.
Air fryer = small oven
Arguably ‘very small oven’ to be accurate. Very efficient. I have no idea why they are/were marketed as air fryers, as they don’t fry food(at best it’s roasted).
They've very small fan ovens. The circulation of the hot air is a crucial part of how they work.
Unless you live in a caravan, I still don’t really see the point in them. Air fryer owners bang on about them but it doesn’t feel like they do anything I can’t already do with my oven
They are more energy efficient than your oven. (That's why @BartholomewRoberts loves them.)
The circulating hot air gives a somewhat different effect than a regular or even a fan oven.
They also cook a bit more quickly.
My oven already makes chips and nuggets warm and crispy. £100-150 on the unit buys you quite a lot of electricity, when you’re paying 7p a unit for most of the year as I am (battery allows time shifting of grid consumption). Also when I looked in the past, there was a slim choice of models that weren’t coated in Teflon. Yuck.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Was he not, under the prevailing law at the time, simply entitled to citizenship as his mother was a citizen ? The guy is at the shitty end of the spectrum, but the bar for revoking citizenship is rightly an extremely high one.
I don't get the debate over this. It seems largely performative.
Yes, there's much to worry about the extent of powers regarding removal of citizenship, but it still is not easy and simply being a shitty person surely would not qualify. If there's a debate about the broadness of citizenship laws, fine, but that can't change the past. So unless it is the case that he was not entitled after all and things were done improperly, the debate seems to have gotten a bit beyond its justification to me.
I think the citizenship laws have probably changed since; it's hard to keep up.
But taking it away once granted is something that should only be done in the most extraordinary circumstances. Certainly not at the behest of some equally compromised shit like Farage.
On the other hand, maybe it could be normalised with a New Year's Dishonours list of 10 or so people who get banished in an annual ceremony.
NEW: Yvette Cooper launches urgent review into 'serious information failures' in the case of Alaa Abd El-Fattah: 'It is clear that this has been an unacceptable failure and that long standing procedures and due diligence arrangements have been completely inadequate'
So Yvette Cooper joins the Guardian on the extreme alt-right, making something out of non-existent anti-Labour stories?
Reduction of demand should come first, just as reduction of energy demand should come before building more power stations or windmills or solar farms.
I do beg to differ, here. Demand reduction measures are an admission a country's energy policy has failed. Abundant, affordable energy has long been acknowledged to be a significant economic asset and social good. Now that we have multiple ways of generating power with little environmental impact, that should always be the priority.
Spending money on insulation schemes, to pick the example you mentioned, is, on a macro level, a complete waste of money. It's an extremely expensive way of reducing demand in one very specific area, without having enough scale to give any general benefits.
Spend that money on new generation facilities and overall supply improves, prices go down for everyone (presuming a free market) and it increases reliability in the system. Build enough and you end up with a surplus of supply, which attracts energy-intensive industries, providing jobs, and can bring opportunities to profit by supplying excess to countries with an energy shortfall.
We should be building wind farms, solar and SMRs as fast as possible. Having too much energy is always better than not having enough.
Could not agree more. This 100% is correct.
If energy is clean, then there's no environmental reason to demand less.
If energy is not clean, then there's no way to get to net zero.
Demand reduction achieves diddly squat and is unscientific gibberish to further hairshirt agendas.
Clean, abundant, cheap and well-used energy is the future.
I think efficiency is always a benefit, so I would support improved insulation, LED lighting, air fryers, etc, but when some people talk about demand reduction it sounds like rationing.
Efficiency is great, yes. I love my air fryer, and LED lights and so on and so forth.
But that is embracing newer technologies that are an improvement, not stepping backwards.
My air fryer cooks better than the oven, most days of the year. Christmas Day I cooked with the oven due to the scale of what was being cooked, but most other days the air fryer operates instead, cooking better and cheaper.
When people want to say "don't travel", or "sit in the cold", or "don't consume" then they're not seeking to either help the environment in a scientific manner, or improve matters for people, they're pushing a bonkers agenda.
Air fryer = small oven
Arguably ‘very small oven’ to be accurate. Very efficient. I have no idea why they are/were marketed as air fryers, as they don’t fry food(at best it’s roasted).
They've very small fan ovens. The circulation of the hot air is a crucial part of how they work.
Unless you live in a caravan, I still don’t really see the point in them. Air fryer owners bang on about them but it doesn’t feel like they do anything I can’t already do with my oven
They are more energy efficient than your oven. (That's why @BartholomewRoberts loves them.)
The circulating hot air gives a somewhat different effect than a regular or even a fan oven.
They also cook a bit more quickly.
My oven already makes chips and nuggets warm and crispy. £100-150 on the unit buys you quite a lot of electricity, when you’re paying 7p a unit for most of the year as I am (battery allows time shifting of grid consumption). Also when I looked in the past, there was a slim choice of models that weren’t coated in Teflon. Yuck.
How long does it take to warm the oven and make those chips and nuggets? An air fryer does it within 15 minutes without any need for preheating.
You get all sorts of models so can choose different ones, our previous one used a metal wire rack just like a conventional oven.
Another advantage because they're smaller is the inner components are normally removeable and dishwasher safe. So considerably easier to clean.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Was he not, under the prevailing law at the time, simply entitled to citizenship as his mother was a citizen ? The guy is at the shitty end of the spectrum, but the bar for revoking citizenship is rightly an extremely high one.
I don't get the debate over this. It seems largely performative.
This is one of those stories where the optics matter more than the underlying facts.
The optics being that Starmer has made another clanger by tweeting using words like “delighted” and “top priority”, hence reigniting the whole immigration and citizenship debate, and making himself look like a complete wally in the process and is now rushing out an expression of concern.
I feel a bit sorry for him in this instance. He’s clearly been caught off guard. But it’s a cautionary tale that before politicians (or their staffers) race to praise anyone on Twitter they really should do their due diligence first and think about how their messaging lands. Once again it gives the impression Starmer is not in control of government - not an impression he wants to give to kick-start the new year at a time where his position is looking increasingly shaky.
Can I recommend to you all a thoroughly interesting 45 minute conversation between Polanski and James Medway, one of the economists I respect most: https://pca.st/episode/aa464011-8ea3-4f3f-8903-0cef76bf3481. Even if Polanski is not your cup of tea (and he isn't mine economically), Meadway is both very intelligent and an excellent communicator.
Two points, a trigger warning and a question: 1. One of the things I respect most about Meadway is that, almost uniquely amongst left-wing economists, he engages with the reality of the power of the bond markets in the UK, resisting the simplistic 'just borrow more' that Polanski wants to hear. 2. Meadway laces his conversation about economics with an understanding of the current and likely future impacts of climate change. At a time when it feels like everyone has just stopped talking about this, that's really refreshing.
The trigger warning: Meadway was economic adviser to McDonnell when he was Shadow Chancellor. If your thinking goes McDonnell=Corbyn=Antisemitism=Evil, maybe spend your scarce 45 mins elsewhere. But if you're interested in a coherent left-wing critique of our economic system it's worth your time.
The question: particularly for @Luckyguy1983 as I know you have views on this, but also for any right of centre person interested in economics - what do you make of Meadway's arguments (first 10 mins of the podcast) about how the BoE deals with its ownership of government debt?
The fact everyone has stopped talking about it shows just how fickle and faddish most public opinion is.
Trump has blocked it on the Right and the Left has decided that Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience.
I will still talk about climate change, but I have asymptotically approached my personal limit on the number of times I am willing to have the same fruitless "debate" with people who deny the science.
As fruitless internet debates go it has nearly a 15 year head start on Brexit, for example.
I think it's more that the debate is effectively over. Very few people continue to deny it exists, or that humans are responsible for it. You still get people like Casino_Royale who think it's just some culture war game, but the data is becoming metronomic - we're about to declare this year our hottest year on record (again).
Er, sod off, old boy.
I've never said anything but climate change is a real thing on here, and have been remarkably consistent in saying that for decades. I also regularly cite Thatcher as one of the first major political leaders to draw attention to the issue, because she understood the science. And a reason why those on the Right shouldn't view climate change as a secret Lefty plot.
Take that back please.
Nope - you suggested that "Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience" - as if caring about the environment is simply a fad for the left. From my experience, concerns for Gaza and the consequences of climate change are both deeply held - and can be at the same time.
I'm sure your personal concern about climate change is sincere - perhaps consider that is also the case for those you would normally consider your political opposites.
People who desire to embrace clean technologies to transition away from dirty ones care about the environment.
People who desire us not to extract domestic oil and gas but to burn as many imports as desired instead do not.
People who wish to prevent others from having holidays or living their lives do not.
People who wish to use the mantra of the environment to further their own agenda, whether it be smashing capitalism or pushing veganism or any other bullshit do not.
There is nothing wrong with caring about the environment and we should seek to transition to clean technologies to do so, the problem is too many with a hate-filled agenda they try to sneak past others in the name of the environment.
Moving past climate change denial to climatr change bargaining:
"Climate change is happenning but we don't need to take serious action, we can carry on much the same"
Embracing clean technologies is taking serious action, which enables us to carry on much the same, yes.
Cutting off our nose to spite our face is not taking serious action and won't impact global emissions as the rest of the world isn't stupid enough to do that.
It's the tragedy of the commons: if everyone else has your attitude, the problem never gets fixed. However, fortunately, by and large, that hasn't happened and we have had good international cooperation with countries working together. Our net zero plans have been pretty similar to other countries'. Until Trump came along and blew a whole in the US position, that is.
Wrong, if people have your attitude, the problem never gets fixed.
With my attitude, we embrace clean technologies and fix the problems.
Cutting off our nose and saying "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat" or any other bullshit does diddly squat to fix the problems.
Embracing clean technologies does. Once the problem is fixed, others can copy our solutions, and we can copy theirs.
Invest in science and technology and research, don't cut consumption.
We may be talking at cross-purposes then -- my apologies. I'm not saying "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat". I am rejecting the idea that we shouldn't do things beause we're a small part of global emissions or because other countries are supposedly not doing the same.
Then we are, because I said we should fix the problems by investing in clean technologies to replace dirty ones, which enables us to carry on as before, but better.
Investing in clean tech has the advantage that once clean tech is developed, others copy it, and we can copy theirs too, so win/win.
Cutting off our nose to spite our face does nothing to fix the actual problems, but is the desired outcome of some people. That things do not go on as before, that we stop consuming, that we stop driving, that we stop travelling. Well that's never happening, what we need is clean travel, clean tech, clean energy, and bountiful amounts of it.
I think you're railing against a straw man there.
Sadly, I'm not. I'm railing against a view repeatedly expressed here, including earlier by Foxy (not for the first time I might add).
There is sadly an attitude amongst some that believing that technology will solve our problems is somehow wishful or magical thinking and that we need to cut things instead.
Well to invoke Arthur C Clarke, any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic - and that is precisely what we need to tackle climate change. Invest in clean technologies, don't tell people what they can and can't do.
No-one, apart from you, has said "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat". Others have talked about government policies that sometimes restrict what people do in certain ways. You are strawmanning what is being said.
We should definitely invest in clean technologies -- and are -- but governments also often tell people what not to do, e.g. abolishing leaded petrol. This can be a successful way of intervening. Investing in clean technologies alone won't work.
But yes, besides charities, government bodies, the Climate Change Committee, national and devolved governments, councils and universities, besides them, its just me. Only me.
My apologies again. I meant to say no-one in this thread.
So we're not to respond to attitudes regularly seen outside of this thread, by groups such as national and devolved governments, charities, councils, universities etc?
Interesting point of view. Threads would be pretty quiet if we didn't bring in viewpoints from outside of the the thread that are relevant.
Reduction of demand should come first, just as reduction of energy demand should come before building more power stations or windmills or solar farms.
I do beg to differ, here. Demand reduction measures are an admission a country's energy policy has failed. Abundant, affordable energy has long been acknowledged to be a significant economic asset and social good. Now that we have multiple ways of generating power with little environmental impact, that should always be the priority.
Spending money on insulation schemes, to pick the example you mentioned, is, on a macro level, a complete waste of money. It's an extremely expensive way of reducing demand in one very specific area, without having enough scale to give any general benefits.
Spend that money on new generation facilities and overall supply improves, prices go down for everyone (presuming a free market) and it increases reliability in the system. Build enough and you end up with a surplus of supply, which attracts energy-intensive industries, providing jobs, and can bring opportunities to profit by supplying excess to countries with an energy shortfall.
We should be building wind farms, solar and SMRs as fast as possible. Having too much energy is always better than not having enough.
Is that true in all cases: encouraging the use of heat pumps is (a) demand reduction, but also (b) gives people cooling in summer?
Annoyingly the governments grant scheme for air source heat pumps only supports heating and will not support cooling, although the same machinery can be set up to do both.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Was he not, under the prevailing law at the time, simply entitled to citizenship as his mother was a citizen ? The guy is at the shitty end of the spectrum, but the bar for revoking citizenship is rightly an extremely high one.
I don't get the debate over this. It seems largely performative.
Yes, there's much to worry about the extent of powers regarding removal of citizenship, but it still is not easy and simply being a shitty person surely would not qualify. If there's a debate about the broadness of citizenship laws, fine, but that can't change the past. So unless it is the case that he was not entitled after all and things were done improperly, the debate seems to have gotten a bit beyond its justification to me.
I think the citizenship laws have probably changed since; it's hard to keep up.
But taking it away once granted is something that should only be done in the most extraordinary circumstances. Certainly not at the behest of some equally compromised shit like Farage.
On the other hand, maybe it could be normalised with a New Year's Dishonours list of 10 or so people who get banished in an annual ceremony.
That's neither original, nor in the least bit attractive.
..While some instances clearly expressed popular anger at the citizen, ostracism was often used preemptively as a way of neutralizing someone thought to be a threat to the state or a potential tyrant... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Was he not, under the prevailing law at the time, simply entitled to citizenship as his mother was a citizen ? The guy is at the shitty end of the spectrum, but the bar for revoking citizenship is rightly an extremely high one.
I don't get the debate over this. It seems largely performative.
He had to apply for it, and there is a Fit and Proper test which is supposed to be assessed.
I am not calling for the revocation of his citizenship, I don’t believe in that (nor for Shamima Begum). But the quid pro quo is that I expect authorities to take reasonable, UK-protecting, precaution when granting nationality, expel ally in what are after all modestly tenuous circumstances.
The man has never been to been the UK, so far as I can tell.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Was he not, under the prevailing law at the time, simply entitled to citizenship as his mother was a citizen ? The guy is at the shitty end of the spectrum, but the bar for revoking citizenship is rightly an extremely high one.
I don't get the debate over this. It seems largely performative.
This is one of those stories where the optics matter more than the underlying facts.
The optics being that Starmer has made another clanger by tweeting using words like “delighted” and “top priority”, hence reigniting the whole immigration and citizenship debate, and making himself look like a complete wally in the process and is now rushing out an expression of concern.
I feel a bit sorry for him in this instance. He’s clearly been caught off guard. But it’s a cautionary tale that before politicians (or their staffers) race to praise anyone on Twitter they really should do their due diligence first and think about how their messaging lands. Once again it gives the impression Starmer is not in control of government - not an impression he wants to give to kick-start the new year at a time where his position is looking increasingly shaky.
A bigger problem is the level of bullshit and that it plays into a distrust of Starmer that is regularly spoken of, which is that he seems to have no top priorities.
So he's willing to trumpet any old shite as a "top priority" in the void of having any, which then backfires as it was not a priority, so he had no idea what the issue was about, so didn't see the rake lying on the ground before he stepped on it.
Here's a suggestion, if something happens which you don't have the foggiest idea about, don't go screaming out that it was a top priority for you.
Here's another suggestion - get some actual top priorities, and do your damned job.
Reduction of demand should come first, just as reduction of energy demand should come before building more power stations or windmills or solar farms.
I do beg to differ, here. Demand reduction measures are an admission a country's energy policy has failed. Abundant, affordable energy has long been acknowledged to be a significant economic asset and social good. Now that we have multiple ways of generating power with little environmental impact, that should always be the priority.
Spending money on insulation schemes, to pick the example you mentioned, is, on a macro level, a complete waste of money. It's an extremely expensive way of reducing demand in one very specific area, without having enough scale to give any general benefits.
Spend that money on new generation facilities and overall supply improves, prices go down for everyone (presuming a free market) and it increases reliability in the system. Build enough and you end up with a surplus of supply, which attracts energy-intensive industries, providing jobs, and can bring opportunities to profit by supplying excess to countries with an energy shortfall.
We should be building wind farms, solar and SMRs as fast as possible. Having too much energy is always better than not having enough.
Is that true in all cases: encouraging the use of heat pumps is (a) demand reduction, but also (b) gives people cooling in summer?
Widespread adoption of heat pumps would dramatically increase the demand for electricity, even if they're theoretically more efficient in pure energy terms.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Was he not, under the prevailing law at the time, simply entitled to citizenship as his mother was a citizen ? The guy is at the shitty end of the spectrum, but the bar for revoking citizenship is rightly an extremely high one.
I don't get the debate over this. It seems largely performative.
This is one of those stories where the optics matter more than the underlying facts.
The optics being that Starmer has made another clanger by tweeting using words like “delighted” and “top priority”, hence reigniting the whole immigration and citizenship debate, and making himself look like a complete wally in the process and is now rushing out an expression of concern.
I feel a bit sorry for him in this instance. He’s clearly been caught off guard. But it’s a cautionary tale that before politicians (or their staffers) race to praise anyone on Twitter they really should do their due diligence first and think about how their messaging lands. Once again it gives the impression Starmer is not in control of government - not an impression he wants to give to kick-start the new year at a time where his position is looking increasingly shaky.
It's not controversial that Starmer is another politician with something of a tin ear.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Was he not, under the prevailing law at the time, simply entitled to citizenship as his mother was a citizen ? The guy is at the shitty end of the spectrum, but the bar for revoking citizenship is rightly an extremely high one.
I don't get the debate over this. It seems largely performative.
He had to apply for it, and there is a Fit and Proper test which is supposed to be assessed.
I am not calling for the revocation of his citizenship, I don’t believe in that (nor for Shamima Begum). But the quid pro quo is that I expect authorities to take reasonable, UK-protecting, precaution when granting nationality, expel ally in what are after all modestly tenuous circumstances.
The man has never been to been the UK, so far as I can tell.
If his Mother is English then so is he.
Not, apparently, according to the law that applied at the time that he was born.
Reduction of demand should come first, just as reduction of energy demand should come before building more power stations or windmills or solar farms.
I do beg to differ, here. Demand reduction measures are an admission a country's energy policy has failed. Abundant, affordable energy has long been acknowledged to be a significant economic asset and social good. Now that we have multiple ways of generating power with little environmental impact, that should always be the priority.
Spending money on insulation schemes, to pick the example you mentioned, is, on a macro level, a complete waste of money. It's an extremely expensive way of reducing demand in one very specific area, without having enough scale to give any general benefits.
Spend that money on new generation facilities and overall supply improves, prices go down for everyone (presuming a free market) and it increases reliability in the system. Build enough and you end up with a surplus of supply, which attracts energy-intensive industries, providing jobs, and can bring opportunities to profit by supplying excess to countries with an energy shortfall.
We should be building wind farms, solar and SMRs as fast as possible. Having too much energy is always better than not having enough.
Is that true in all cases: encouraging the use of heat pumps is (a) demand reduction, but also (b) gives people cooling in summer?
Annoyingly the governments grant scheme for air source heat pumps only supports heating and will not support cooling, although the same machinery can be set up to do both.
Can I recommend to you all a thoroughly interesting 45 minute conversation between Polanski and James Medway, one of the economists I respect most: https://pca.st/episode/aa464011-8ea3-4f3f-8903-0cef76bf3481. Even if Polanski is not your cup of tea (and he isn't mine economically), Meadway is both very intelligent and an excellent communicator.
Two points, a trigger warning and a question: 1. One of the things I respect most about Meadway is that, almost uniquely amongst left-wing economists, he engages with the reality of the power of the bond markets in the UK, resisting the simplistic 'just borrow more' that Polanski wants to hear. 2. Meadway laces his conversation about economics with an understanding of the current and likely future impacts of climate change. At a time when it feels like everyone has just stopped talking about this, that's really refreshing.
The trigger warning: Meadway was economic adviser to McDonnell when he was Shadow Chancellor. If your thinking goes McDonnell=Corbyn=Antisemitism=Evil, maybe spend your scarce 45 mins elsewhere. But if you're interested in a coherent left-wing critique of our economic system it's worth your time.
The question: particularly for @Luckyguy1983 as I know you have views on this, but also for any right of centre person interested in economics - what do you make of Meadway's arguments (first 10 mins of the podcast) about how the BoE deals with its ownership of government debt?
The fact everyone has stopped talking about it shows just how fickle and faddish most public opinion is.
Trump has blocked it on the Right and the Left has decided that Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience.
I will still talk about climate change, but I have asymptotically approached my personal limit on the number of times I am willing to have the same fruitless "debate" with people who deny the science.
As fruitless internet debates go it has nearly a 15 year head start on Brexit, for example.
I was going to say that all the Reform-leaning posters here seem variously disconnected from reality. Climate change denial is one example.
I don’t think a great many people are climate change denialists. But different people place a different emphasis on things. I don’t for example put it in the top 10 of things to worry about, even though it’s pretty obvious to me that anthropogenic carbon releases do impact the climate.
I have found it dropping down my list of priorities, personally.
In part that is because I think we are probably past the point when we will be able to have a meaningful chance of preventing self-reinforcing feedback systems of warning.
In part I think it has been displaced by more immediate priorities: sustaining democracy, national security, inequality, the broken nature of our economic system.
In part I can recognise that concern about climate change is a privileged concern - whilst it is likely to have some fairly catastrophic effects, these only really register if one is right at the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, not least because most of the impacts are still in the future.
I still think it will be the defining historical narrative of the 21st century but am much more fatalistic about it than I used to be.
A more optimistic factor is that many of the key technologies we need to deploy to reduce the scale of the problem (solar and batteries, say) have reached a level of maturity where government intervention is not required to kick-start their development and deployment.
Sure, it would have been better if we could have reached this point earlier, and there's still things government can do to ease and speed the transition, but the very worst-case emissions scenarios are now almost impossible because solar is now cheaper than coal.
It's much harder to anticipate the adaptations we will need to make to deal with the climate change our past emissions have committed us to, because they're hard to predict with the necessary precision and accuracy.
So I'm mainly crossing my fingers and hoping for the best at this stage.
Solar is now the cheapest to install. Solar + battery is approaching that.
China is installing it at an insane rate. They are starting to shift to green steel production as well - while we do nothing.
EV upfront price is now falling below ICE upfront price.
Etc. etc.
Right. We had that whole argument over green steel production a few years ago when the question of that coking mine came up. I believe I'm right in saying that the British choice was to do neither. No coking mine, no green steel production, maybe no steel production at all before long.
Yes, we all got slightly dogmatic about it - and hobbled ourselves- which is hardly helpful.
We need a practical path to emissions balance.
You want practical?
CCS.
In principle, yes, I agree. There's no real alternative.
However, I'm yet to see a pragmatic system at scale that's economically viable.
Reeves put a couple of measures into the budget designed to make/ limit/ tax/ cement imports to keep a cement factory or two open while reducing emissions vis CCS.
Reduction of demand should come first, just as reduction of energy demand should come before building more power stations or windmills or solar farms.
I do beg to differ, here. Demand reduction measures are an admission a country's energy policy has failed. Abundant, affordable energy has long been acknowledged to be a significant economic asset and social good. Now that we have multiple ways of generating power with little environmental impact, that should always be the priority.
Spending money on insulation schemes, to pick the example you mentioned, is, on a macro level, a complete waste of money. It's an extremely expensive way of reducing demand in one very specific area, without having enough scale to give any general benefits.
Spend that money on new generation facilities and overall supply improves, prices go down for everyone (presuming a free market) and it increases reliability in the system. Build enough and you end up with a surplus of supply, which attracts energy-intensive industries, providing jobs, and can bring opportunities to profit by supplying excess to countries with an energy shortfall.
We should be building wind farms, solar and SMRs as fast as possible. Having too much energy is always better than not having enough.
Is that true in all cases: encouraging the use of heat pumps is (a) demand reduction, but also (b) gives people cooling in summer?
Widespread adoption of heat pumps would dramatically increase the demand for electricity, even if they're theoretically more efficient in pure energy terms.
Yes. I've no idea how much we need to expand grid capacity by to accommodate the electrification of surface transport, home heating (& perhaps cooking), but double is probably not a bad place to start.
This requires a bit of planning ahead, which has been obvious for a while.
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Interesting that you should add 'rape'. I've not seen that mentioned. I Would imagine as in the reverse it would be regarded as 'traife'
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
If Jenrick considers liking a facebook post to be a crime worthy of losing citizenship, just imagine how he will react to someone copying and pasting a tweet, William.
Reduction of demand should come first, just as reduction of energy demand should come before building more power stations or windmills or solar farms.
I do beg to differ, here. Demand reduction measures are an admission a country's energy policy has failed. Abundant, affordable energy has long been acknowledged to be a significant economic asset and social good. Now that we have multiple ways of generating power with little environmental impact, that should always be the priority.
Spending money on insulation schemes, to pick the example you mentioned, is, on a macro level, a complete waste of money. It's an extremely expensive way of reducing demand in one very specific area, without having enough scale to give any general benefits.
Spend that money on new generation facilities and overall supply improves, prices go down for everyone (presuming a free market) and it increases reliability in the system. Build enough and you end up with a surplus of supply, which attracts energy-intensive industries, providing jobs, and can bring opportunities to profit by supplying excess to countries with an energy shortfall.
We should be building wind farms, solar and SMRs as fast as possible. Having too much energy is always better than not having enough.
Could not agree more. This 100% is correct.
If energy is clean, then there's no environmental reason to demand less.
If energy is not clean, then there's no way to get to net zero.
Demand reduction achieves diddly squat and is unscientific gibberish to further hairshirt agendas.
Clean, abundant, cheap and well-used energy is the future.
I think efficiency is always a benefit, so I would support improved insulation, LED lighting, air fryers, etc, but when some people talk about demand reduction it sounds like rationing.
Efficiency is great, yes. I love my air fryer, and LED lights and so on and so forth.
But that is embracing newer technologies that are an improvement, not stepping backwards.
My air fryer cooks better than the oven, most days of the year. Christmas Day I cooked with the oven due to the scale of what was being cooked, but most other days the air fryer operates instead, cooking better and cheaper.
When people want to say "don't travel", or "sit in the cold", or "don't consume" then they're not seeking to either help the environment in a scientific manner, or improve matters for people, they're pushing a bonkers agenda.
Air fryer = small oven
Arguably ‘very small oven’ to be accurate. Very efficient. I have no idea why they are/were marketed as air fryers, as they don’t fry food(at best it’s roasted).
They've very small fan ovens. The circulation of the hot air is a crucial part of how they work.
Unless you live in a caravan, I still don’t really see the point in them. Air fryer owners bang on about them but it doesn’t feel like they do anything I can’t already do with my oven
They are more energy efficient than your oven. (That's why @BartholomewRoberts loves them.)
The circulating hot air gives a somewhat different effect than a regular or even a fan oven.
They also cook a bit more quickly.
My oven already makes chips and nuggets warm and crispy. £100-150 on the unit buys you quite a lot of electricity, when you’re paying 7p a unit for most of the year as I am (battery allows time shifting of grid consumption). Also when I looked in the past, there was a slim choice of models that weren’t coated in Teflon. Yuck.
Can I recommend to you all a thoroughly interesting 45 minute conversation between Polanski and James Medway, one of the economists I respect most: https://pca.st/episode/aa464011-8ea3-4f3f-8903-0cef76bf3481. Even if Polanski is not your cup of tea (and he isn't mine economically), Meadway is both very intelligent and an excellent communicator.
Two points, a trigger warning and a question: 1. One of the things I respect most about Meadway is that, almost uniquely amongst left-wing economists, he engages with the reality of the power of the bond markets in the UK, resisting the simplistic 'just borrow more' that Polanski wants to hear. 2. Meadway laces his conversation about economics with an understanding of the current and likely future impacts of climate change. At a time when it feels like everyone has just stopped talking about this, that's really refreshing.
The trigger warning: Meadway was economic adviser to McDonnell when he was Shadow Chancellor. If your thinking goes McDonnell=Corbyn=Antisemitism=Evil, maybe spend your scarce 45 mins elsewhere. But if you're interested in a coherent left-wing critique of our economic system it's worth your time.
The question: particularly for @Luckyguy1983 as I know you have views on this, but also for any right of centre person interested in economics - what do you make of Meadway's arguments (first 10 mins of the podcast) about how the BoE deals with its ownership of government debt?
The fact everyone has stopped talking about it shows just how fickle and faddish most public opinion is.
Trump has blocked it on the Right and the Left has decided that Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience.
I will still talk about climate change, but I have asymptotically approached my personal limit on the number of times I am willing to have the same fruitless "debate" with people who deny the science.
As fruitless internet debates go it has nearly a 15 year head start on Brexit, for example.
I think it's more that the debate is effectively over. Very few people continue to deny it exists, or that humans are responsible for it. You still get people like Casino_Royale who think it's just some culture war game, but the data is becoming metronomic - we're about to declare this year our hottest year on record (again). I think we all understand that with Trump any debate/campaign for mitigation is fruitless until we get a sane Thatcher-type figure on the right again.
At some point we are going to need to have a serious conversation about adaptation. That's what so pathetic about those people who suggest we can't stop it happening - fine, so where's the big plan for 3 degrees+?
On the domestic front, we have nobody building any water infrastructure, and a virtual ban on dredging for the last 20-25 years, due to EU habitat legislation, then we blame the resulting summer droughts and winter floods on climate change.
I don't think it is included in the above - one of our basic planning policies since about 2010 has been that surface water runoff from a development should be no more than the pre-existing site - that's where all our balancing ponds come from. The last one of these I did required a preliminary design as part of Outline Permission, required to establish that the site was suitable for development; it was done by Mott McDonald and came to around £250 per potential housing unit just for the preliminary design.
The Thames Tideway Tunnel, which came online last year, was about £5 billion on its own.
That's all water infrastructure, as is investment in sewerage treatment, canal and river maintenance, and the rest.
That is a fair response to a point I made that included hyperbole but was still an important one.
There have been no major reservoirs built for over 30 years - the last one (there are some being built now) was completed in 1992. At the same time, the population has risen by 11 million.
I find that staggering, and it makes me extremely cynical when people panic about our weather conditions.
In general I'd argue that building more reservoirs should be the last resort, as it is a 'tailpipe' solution. Reduction of demand should come first, just as reduction of energy demand should come before building more power stations or windmills or solar farms. So for me that means measures such as leak reduction and 100% water meters, which apply the market mechanism and themselves generate a reduction of 10-12% in water usage, before we spend hundreds of millions on new reservoirs.
I think one of the unforeseen problems of the last budget will be caused by the unbundling of insulation etc programmes from energy bills - it can now be seen and will be far easier to target in political debate. The programme has been very successful for 15 years doing basics such as loft insulation, until the current one is under severe question - when the programme has been doing more complex installations (eg external wall insulation) with inadequate standards / supervision.
I am sure you would argue that - I would argue the opposite. Your argument leads to the British economy where it now is - mine leads to the Chinese economy where it now is. Abundant and cheap energy is a pre-requisite for any prosperous society, and is the lifeblood of human progress.
More specifically, having a deliberate policy of failing to build sufficient reservoirs, and instead blame the public for water shortages - encouraging them to water their gardens less, even to shower less (truly revolting) and take other punitive measures to combat 'water shortages' (when Winter floods will be along soon) is simply gaslighting.
I admit I just don't see that as a viable argument. I think you are assuming a zero-sum game, which is not the case. I don't see how a concept of blame applies.
Achieving the same outcome using fewer resources is a simple increase in efficiency. How is that not a benefit.
Why should we want to use 25% more water (or electricity) than necessary? Would you argue against reduced fuel consumption in a motor vehicle on the same basis?
The point about reservoirs is that if water consumption is reduced, fewer reservoirs is not "insufficient"; it changes the definition of "sufficient" to be a smaller quantity.
To turn the question around, why should we waste scarce resources on building unnecessary reservoirs or power stations?
For a specific example on water, current use in Denmark is around 105l per person per day, compared to 130-140l in England. Denmark does not seem to have an economy on its knees, and is noticeably prosperous.
Because water is not scarce. It is especially unscarce in the UK. It is an abundant resource that is there to be enjoyed and used. The idea of convincing the public that it is running out and that they are showering too long or gardening too much is a despicable perversion of the truth that would mystify and appall our ancestors.
Not true. Shortage of water was a regular concern. Especially as it affected their transport and their food production systems (watermills). temsd
An excess of reservoirs would lead to… a number of smallish lakes, full of fish, wildlife. If vaguely well designed.
Not exactly the epoxyclipse
Araldite involved somehow? Jings, crivvens etc.
Anyway: oh. quite, with some marshland too as well, to mop up excess flows. All for it. But it needs to be sort of local for local benefit. Like the sailing in that big lake near Oxford whose name I forget, in the loop of the Thames. Not built in another country altogether, cf. Vrynwy Reservoir.
Reduction of demand should come first, just as reduction of energy demand should come before building more power stations or windmills or solar farms.
I do beg to differ, here. Demand reduction measures are an admission a country's energy policy has failed. Abundant, affordable energy has long been acknowledged to be a significant economic asset and social good. Now that we have multiple ways of generating power with little environmental impact, that should always be the priority.
Spending money on insulation schemes, to pick the example you mentioned, is, on a macro level, a complete waste of money. It's an extremely expensive way of reducing demand in one very specific area, without having enough scale to give any general benefits.
Spend that money on new generation facilities and overall supply improves, prices go down for everyone (presuming a free market) and it increases reliability in the system. Build enough and you end up with a surplus of supply, which attracts energy-intensive industries, providing jobs, and can bring opportunities to profit by supplying excess to countries with an energy shortfall.
We should be building wind farms, solar and SMRs as fast as possible. Having too much energy is always better than not having enough.
Is that true in all cases: encouraging the use of heat pumps is (a) demand reduction, but also (b) gives people cooling in summer?
Widespread adoption of heat pumps would dramatically increase the demand for electricity, even if they're theoretically more efficient in pure energy terms.
Yes. I've no idea how much we need to expand grid capacity by to accommodate the electrification of surface transport, home heating (& perhaps cooking), but double is probably not a bad place to start.
This requires a bit of planning ahead, which has been obvious for a while.
Indeed. They've upgraded the cables and junctions to the houses in our street, explicitly for that.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Interesting that you should add 'rape'. I've not seen that mentioned. I Would imagine as in the reverse it would be regarded as 'traife'
What first attracted you to the person who repeatedly called for the death of zionists?
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
Jenrick or Fattah ?
In either case, they're pretty nasty individuals, but just no.
If we can't cope with crappy political debates without resorting to ostracism, then we are lost as a well functioning democracy.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Interesting that you should add 'rape'. I've not seen that mentioned. I Would imagine as in the reverse it would be regarded as 'traife'
What first attracted you to the person who repeatedly called for the death of zionists?
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
Jenrick or Fattah ?
In either case, they're pretty nasty individuals, but just no.
If we can't cope with crappy political debates without resorting to ostracism, then we are lost as a well functioning democracy.
I'm not sure ostracism is the right word. El-Fattah is not in any meaningful sense a member of the British political community. He's a foreign activist who happens to have acquired British citizenship based on a technicality.
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
Jenrick or Fattah ?
In either case, they're pretty nasty individuals, but just no.
If we can't cope with crappy political debates without resorting to ostracism, then we are lost as a well functioning democracy.
I'm not sure ostracism is the right word. El-Fattah is not in any meaningful sense a member of the British political community. He's a foreign activist who happens to have acquired British citizenship based on a technicality.
The government doesn't need to do anything to "wean the UK off fossil fuels".
It will happen anyway, on probably a very similar timeframe, if we just leave it to the market.
Things like CCS are fundamentally stupid because they are a massive long term capital commitment for a kind of power than will simply be uneconomic.
The government should get out of the way, simplify planning, and let the market do it's thing.
I'm still waiting for the solar plus battery boom that's been just a few years away for the last decade. It's becoming as elusive as fusion energy.
I think we need to face up to the fact that over the next decade there's going to be intermittent power because our energy policy has been failure for the last 30 years and energy companies like water companies have extracted tens of billions without any minimum investment requirements for every pound taken as dividends or in share buybacks.
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
If Jenrick considers liking a facebook post to be a crime worthy of losing citizenship, just imagine how he will react to someone copying and pasting a tweet, William.
Jenrick and Philp have smashed this out of the park. Absolutely brilliant politics from the Tories.
If the Tories ditch Badenoch, Honest Bob is your man. Very cynical, very clever.
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
Jenrick or Fattah ?
In either case, they're pretty nasty individuals, but just no.
If we can't cope with crappy political debates without resorting to ostracism, then we are lost as a well functioning democracy.
I'm not sure ostracism is the right word. El-Fattah is not in any meaningful sense a member of the British political community. He's a foreign activist who happens to have acquired British citizenship based on a technicality.
There's no such gradation of citizenship in law.
If you go down that road then you're opening a large and very unpleasant can of worms.
Reduction of demand should come first, just as reduction of energy demand should come before building more power stations or windmills or solar farms.
I do beg to differ, here. Demand reduction measures are an admission a country's energy policy has failed. Abundant, affordable energy has long been acknowledged to be a significant economic asset and social good. Now that we have multiple ways of generating power with little environmental impact, that should always be the priority.
Spending money on insulation schemes, to pick the example you mentioned, is, on a macro level, a complete waste of money. It's an extremely expensive way of reducing demand in one very specific area, without having enough scale to give any general benefits.
Spend that money on new generation facilities and overall supply improves, prices go down for everyone (presuming a free market) and it increases reliability in the system. Build enough and you end up with a surplus of supply, which attracts energy-intensive industries, providing jobs, and can bring opportunities to profit by supplying excess to countries with an energy shortfall.
We should be building wind farms, solar and SMRs as fast as possible. Having too much energy is always better than not having enough.
Could not agree more. This 100% is correct.
If energy is clean, then there's no environmental reason to demand less.
If energy is not clean, then there's no way to get to net zero.
Demand reduction achieves diddly squat and is unscientific gibberish to further hairshirt agendas.
Clean, abundant, cheap and well-used energy is the future.
I think efficiency is always a benefit, so I would support improved insulation, LED lighting, air fryers, etc, but when some people talk about demand reduction it sounds like rationing.
Efficiency is great, yes. I love my air fryer, and LED lights and so on and so forth.
But that is embracing newer technologies that are an improvement, not stepping backwards.
My air fryer cooks better than the oven, most days of the year. Christmas Day I cooked with the oven due to the scale of what was being cooked, but most other days the air fryer operates instead, cooking better and cheaper.
When people want to say "don't travel", or "sit in the cold", or "don't consume" then they're not seeking to either help the environment in a scientific manner, or improve matters for people, they're pushing a bonkers agenda.
Air fryer = small oven
Arguably ‘very small oven’ to be accurate. Very efficient. I have no idea why they are/were marketed as air fryers, as they don’t fry food(at best it’s roasted).
They've very small fan ovens. The circulation of the hot air is a crucial part of how they work.
Unless you live in a caravan, I still don’t really see the point in them. Air fryer owners bang on about them but it doesn’t feel like they do anything I can’t already do with my oven
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
Jenrick or Fattah ?
In either case, they're pretty nasty individuals, but just no.
If we can't cope with crappy political debates without resorting to ostracism, then we are lost as a well functioning democracy.
I'm not sure ostracism is the right word. El-Fattah is not in any meaningful sense a member of the British political community. He's a foreign activist who happens to have acquired British citizenship based on a technicality.
There's no such gradation of citizenship in law.
If you go down that road then you're opening a large and very unpleasant can of worms.
The can of worms was opened when the meaning of citizenship was devalued.
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
Jenrick or Fattah ?
In either case, they're pretty nasty individuals, but just no.
If we can't cope with crappy political debates without resorting to ostracism, then we are lost as a well functioning democracy.
I'm not sure ostracism is the right word. El-Fattah is not in any meaningful sense a member of the British political community. He's a foreign activist who happens to have acquired British citizenship based on a technicality.
There's no such gradation of citizenship in law.
If you go down that road then you're opening a large and very unpleasant can of worms.
The can of worms was opened when the meaning of citizenship was devalued.
I bet the Tories are about to remember the cab rank rule, which is something they forget about Sir Keir.
The Tories’ Shadow Attorney General, Lord Wolfson, is representing Roman Abramovich in a legal case that is delaying the transfer of £2.5bn of assets to benefit the people of Ukraine.
I’ve written to @KemiBadenoch about the conflicts of interest this raises.
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
Jenrick or Fattah ?
In either case, they're pretty nasty individuals, but just no.
If we can't cope with crappy political debates without resorting to ostracism, then we are lost as a well functioning democracy.
I'm not sure ostracism is the right word. El-Fattah is not in any meaningful sense a member of the British political community. He's a foreign activist who happens to have acquired British citizenship based on a technicality.
There's no such gradation of citizenship in law.
If you go down that road then you're opening a large and very unpleasant can of worms.
The can of worms was opened when the meaning of citizenship was devalued.
How was it devalued?
William is talking shit again. We've fairly regularly changed the rules to make it more difficult to gain citizenship (and no doubt if he gets his way will do so again).
The idea that we should make it easier to take away someone's citizenship for political reasons is a far shittier one.
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
Jenrick or Fattah ?
In either case, they're pretty nasty individuals, but just no.
If we can't cope with crappy political debates without resorting to ostracism, then we are lost as a well functioning democracy.
I'm not sure ostracism is the right word. El-Fattah is not in any meaningful sense a member of the British political community. He's a foreign activist who happens to have acquired British citizenship based on a technicality.
There's no such gradation of citizenship in law.
If you go down that road then you're opening a large and very unpleasant can of worms.
The can of worms was opened when the meaning of citizenship was devalued.
How was it devalued?
You’re an economist. What happens to the value of something when the supply goes up?
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
Jenrick or Fattah ?
In either case, they're pretty nasty individuals, but just no.
If we can't cope with crappy political debates without resorting to ostracism, then we are lost as a well functioning democracy.
I'm not sure ostracism is the right word. El-Fattah is not in any meaningful sense a member of the British political community. He's a foreign activist who happens to have acquired British citizenship based on a technicality.
There's no such gradation of citizenship in law.
If you go down that road then you're opening a large and very unpleasant can of worms.
The can of worms was opened when the meaning of citizenship was devalued.
"Service guarantees Citizenship! Would you like to know more?"
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
Jenrick or Fattah ?
In either case, they're pretty nasty individuals, but just no.
If we can't cope with crappy political debates without resorting to ostracism, then we are lost as a well functioning democracy.
I'm not sure ostracism is the right word. El-Fattah is not in any meaningful sense a member of the British political community. He's a foreign activist who happens to have acquired British citizenship based on a technicality.
There's no such gradation of citizenship in law.
If you go down that road then you're opening a large and very unpleasant can of worms.
The can of worms was opened when the meaning of citizenship was devalued.
How was it devalued?
It wasn't.
In much the same way that you can choose your friends but not your family, you can't always choose your fellow citizens.
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
Jenrick or Fattah ?
In either case, they're pretty nasty individuals, but just no.
If we can't cope with crappy political debates without resorting to ostracism, then we are lost as a well functioning democracy.
I'm not sure ostracism is the right word. El-Fattah is not in any meaningful sense a member of the British political community. He's a foreign activist who happens to have acquired British citizenship based on a technicality.
There's no such gradation of citizenship in law.
If you go down that road then you're opening a large and very unpleasant can of worms.
The can of worms was opened when the meaning of citizenship was devalued.
How was it devalued?
You’re an economist. What happens to the value of something when the supply goes up?
It depends upon demand.
Demand seems incredibly high to me, not seeing any devaluation there.
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
Jenrick or Fattah ?
In either case, they're pretty nasty individuals, but just no.
If we can't cope with crappy political debates without resorting to ostracism, then we are lost as a well functioning democracy.
I'm not sure ostracism is the right word. El-Fattah is not in any meaningful sense a member of the British political community. He's a foreign activist who happens to have acquired British citizenship based on a technicality.
There's no such gradation of citizenship in law.
If you go down that road then you're opening a large and very unpleasant can of worms.
The can of worms was opened when the meaning of citizenship was devalued.
How was it devalued?
You’re an economist. What happens to the value of something when the supply goes up?
You've not heard about Veblen goods.
I'd say British citizenship is the ultimate Veblen good.
The U.S. has confirmed its first known land-based strike inside Venezuela, destroying a major drug-related facility as part of its campaign against narcoterrorists connected to the Maduro government. https://x.com/onestpress/status/2005729871411269910
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
Jenrick or Fattah ?
In either case, they're pretty nasty individuals, but just no.
If we can't cope with crappy political debates without resorting to ostracism, then we are lost as a well functioning democracy.
I'm not sure ostracism is the right word. El-Fattah is not in any meaningful sense a member of the British political community. He's a foreign activist who happens to have acquired British citizenship based on a technicality.
Are you really a moron? His Mother is English. That makes him English. He has no dual nationality
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
Jenrick or Fattah ?
In either case, they're pretty nasty individuals, but just no.
If we can't cope with crappy political debates without resorting to ostracism, then we are lost as a well functioning democracy.
I'm not sure ostracism is the right word. El-Fattah is not in any meaningful sense a member of the British political community. He's a foreign activist who happens to have acquired British citizenship based on a technicality.
There's no such gradation of citizenship in law.
If you go down that road then you're opening a large and very unpleasant can of worms.
The can of worms was opened when the meaning of citizenship was devalued.
How was it devalued?
You’re an economist. What happens to the value of something when the supply goes up?
You've not heard about Veblen goods.
I'd say British citizenship is the ultimate Veblen good.
There is something to be said for replacing the immigration system with tradable visas capped at a set number.
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
Jenrick or Fattah ?
In either case, they're pretty nasty individuals, but just no.
If we can't cope with crappy political debates without resorting to ostracism, then we are lost as a well functioning democracy.
I'm not sure ostracism is the right word. El-Fattah is not in any meaningful sense a member of the British political community. He's a foreign activist who happens to have acquired British citizenship based on a technicality.
Are you really a moron? His Mother is English. That makes him English. He has no dual nationality
What? He’s an Egyptian citizen and only applied for a British passport a few years ago.
Reduction of demand should come first, just as reduction of energy demand should come before building more power stations or windmills or solar farms.
I do beg to differ, here. Demand reduction measures are an admission a country's energy policy has failed. Abundant, affordable energy has long been acknowledged to be a significant economic asset and social good. Now that we have multiple ways of generating power with little environmental impact, that should always be the priority.
Spending money on insulation schemes, to pick the example you mentioned, is, on a macro level, a complete waste of money. It's an extremely expensive way of reducing demand in one very specific area, without having enough scale to give any general benefits.
Spend that money on new generation facilities and overall supply improves, prices go down for everyone (presuming a free market) and it increases reliability in the system. Build enough and you end up with a surplus of supply, which attracts energy-intensive industries, providing jobs, and can bring opportunities to profit by supplying excess to countries with an energy shortfall.
We should be building wind farms, solar and SMRs as fast as possible. Having too much energy is always better than not having enough.
Is that true in all cases: encouraging the use of heat pumps is (a) demand reduction, but also (b) gives people cooling in summer?
Widespread adoption of heat pumps would dramatically increase the demand for electricity, even if they're theoretically more efficient in pure energy terms.
Yes. I've no idea how much we need to expand grid capacity by to accommodate the electrification of surface transport, home heating (& perhaps cooking), but double is probably not a bad place to start.
This requires a bit of planning ahead, which has been obvious for a while.
Worth pointing out that this complicates the government target to decarbonise the electricity supply.
The target is for 95% of electricity on the grid to be "clean" in 2030 - presumably meaning only 5% gas. This target will be much easier to hit if overall electricity demand is lower - i.e. if there are fewer EV cars and heat pumps.
This creates unhelpful incentives for the government if the transition to EV cars or heat pumps happens more quickly than planned, or if AI data centres add a lot more demand to the grid.
The prospect of a government being tied up in knots by its own targets is rather lessened by that other favourite target device - set the target date beyond the next election. Most likely they won't be around to worry about it.
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
Jenrick or Fattah ?
In either case, they're pretty nasty individuals, but just no.
If we can't cope with crappy political debates without resorting to ostracism, then we are lost as a well functioning democracy.
I'm not sure ostracism is the right word. El-Fattah is not in any meaningful sense a member of the British political community. He's a foreign activist who happens to have acquired British citizenship based on a technicality.
Are you really a moron? His Mother is English. That makes him English. He has no dual nationality
He currently has Egyptian citizenship Rogerdamus.
Egypt are looking to revoke,it but has not done so yet.
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
Jenrick or Fattah ?
In either case, they're pretty nasty individuals, but just no.
If we can't cope with crappy political debates without resorting to ostracism, then we are lost as a well functioning democracy.
I'm not sure ostracism is the right word. El-Fattah is not in any meaningful sense a member of the British political community. He's a foreign activist who happens to have acquired British citizenship based on a technicality.
Are you really a moron? His Mother is English. That makes him English. He has no dual nationality
Reduction of demand should come first, just as reduction of energy demand should come before building more power stations or windmills or solar farms.
I do beg to differ, here. Demand reduction measures are an admission a country's energy policy has failed. Abundant, affordable energy has long been acknowledged to be a significant economic asset and social good. Now that we have multiple ways of generating power with little environmental impact, that should always be the priority.
Spending money on insulation schemes, to pick the example you mentioned, is, on a macro level, a complete waste of money. It's an extremely expensive way of reducing demand in one very specific area, without having enough scale to give any general benefits.
Spend that money on new generation facilities and overall supply improves, prices go down for everyone (presuming a free market) and it increases reliability in the system. Build enough and you end up with a surplus of supply, which attracts energy-intensive industries, providing jobs, and can bring opportunities to profit by supplying excess to countries with an energy shortfall.
We should be building wind farms, solar and SMRs as fast as possible. Having too much energy is always better than not having enough.
Is that true in all cases: encouraging the use of heat pumps is (a) demand reduction, but also (b) gives people cooling in summer?
Widespread adoption of heat pumps would dramatically increase the demand for electricity, even if they're theoretically more efficient in pure energy terms.
Yes. I've no idea how much we need to expand grid capacity by to accommodate the electrification of surface transport, home heating (& perhaps cooking), but double is probably not a bad place to start.
This requires a bit of planning ahead, which has been obvious for a while.
Worth pointing out that this complicates the government target to decarbonise the electricity supply.
The target is for 95% of electricity on the grid to be "clean" in 2030 - presumably meaning only 5% gas. This target will be much easier to hit if overall electricity demand is lower - i.e. if there are fewer EV cars and heat pumps.
This creates unhelpful incentives for the government if the transition to EV cars or heat pumps happens more quickly than planned, or if AI data centres add a lot more demand to the grid.
The prospect of a government being tied up in knots by its own targets is rather lessened by that other favourite target device - set the target date beyond the next election. Most likely they won't be around to worry about it.
Goes back,to what we discussed here the other day about conflicting KPi’s harming not helping.
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
Jenrick or Fattah ?
In either case, they're pretty nasty individuals, but just no.
If we can't cope with crappy political debates without resorting to ostracism, then we are lost as a well functioning democracy.
I'm not sure ostracism is the right word. El-Fattah is not in any meaningful sense a member of the British political community. He's a foreign activist who happens to have acquired British citizenship based on a technicality.
Are you really a moron? His Mother is English. That makes him English. He has no dual nationality
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Was he not, under the prevailing law at the time, simply entitled to citizenship as his mother was a citizen ? The guy is at the shitty end of the spectrum, but the bar for revoking citizenship is rightly an extremely high one.
I don't get the debate over this. It seems largely performative.
He had to apply for it, and there is a Fit and Proper test which is supposed to be assessed.
I am not calling for the revocation of his citizenship, I don’t believe in that (nor for Shamima Begum). But the quid pro quo is that I expect authorities to take reasonable, UK-protecting, precaution when granting nationality, expel ally in what are after all modestly tenuous circumstances.
The man has never been to been the UK, so far as I can tell.
Indeed it's quite a predicament for him, to be obliged to come & live in a country full of the kind of people he hates. Poor chap.
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Was he not, under the prevailing law at the time, simply entitled to citizenship as his mother was a citizen ? The guy is at the shitty end of the spectrum, but the bar for revoking citizenship is rightly an extremely high one.
I don't get the debate over this. It seems largely performative.
He had to apply for it, and there is a Fit and Proper test which is supposed to be assessed.
I am not calling for the revocation of his citizenship, I don’t believe in that (nor for Shamima Begum). But the quid pro quo is that I expect authorities to take reasonable, UK-protecting, precaution when granting nationality, expel ally in what are after all modestly tenuous circumstances.
The man has never been to been the UK, so far as I can tell.
Indeed it's quite a predicament for him, to be obliged to come & live in a country full of the kind of people he hates. Poor chap.
I’m sure he won’t hate the home on the south coast in Brighton and taxpayers money he will get though. 👍
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
After a bit of a dry spell, we’re once again leading the world in comedy.
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
After a bit of a dry spell, we’re once again leading the world in comedy.
You haven't resurrected your Eurofederalist routine have you?
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
After a bit of a dry spell, we’re once again leading the world in comedy.
Comments
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Roast chicken, roast beef, potatoes in various ways (though I did gratin in the oven yesterday), sausages, all are better in the air fryer.
They're a genuine leap forward in kitchen technology.
Most of the wicked problems in society are the ones about tradeoffs; which of these two good things should we prefer, or which of these two bad things should we reluctantly accept for now?
Charities are programmed, required even, to ignore tradeoffs. They have a charitable purpose, and they are duty-bound to do that as much as they can, no matter what the external consequences are. Much like that imaginary robot that keeps making paperclips, even if it ends up destroying human civilization to do so.
Those tradeoffs are the stuff of government and politics. But we've decided to deny their existence, which is one of the underlying causes of... all of this.
We should definitely invest in clean technologies -- and are -- but governments also often tell people what not to do, e.g. abolishing leaded petrol. This can be a successful way of intervening. Investing in clean technologies alone won't work.
The surprise is Rory's choice for PM. A labour Minister who has just climbed Everest during the recess door to door in six days! He also happens to be someone I've never heard of....
The worst are more predictable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=894lZtK54cQ
https://www.youtube.com/@TheRoyalInstitution/playlists
So, many people did know, and considered it water under the bridge.
Putin bombs civilians every day, and killed a 4 yr old kid the other day. Is he somehow exempt from retaliation ?
If the fucker wants peace he could have it tomorrow.
He doesn't.
The guy is at the shitty end of the spectrum, but the bar for revoking citizenship is rightly an extremely high one.
I don't get the debate over this. It seems largely performative.
I've been paid from cancer charity funding. Breast cancer, as an example, gets massively more funding than bowel cancer. Breast cancer is a common cancer and does warrant attention, but it gets way more than bowel cancer, another common cancer that warrants attention.
I am not calling for the revocation of his citizenship, I don’t believe in that (nor for Shamima Begum). But the quid pro quo is that I expect authorities to take reasonable, UK-protecting, precaution when granting nationality, expel ally in what are after all modestly tenuous circumstances.
The man has never been to been the UK, so far as I can tell.
(I'm not sure what is going on; it is not that small. They are here:
https://www.diy.com/departments/2-in-1-toilet-with-sink-close-coupled-space-saving-cloakroom-wc-basin/5061068982160_BQ.prd?srsltid=AfmBOoqebaaEnNHSgyyZ7CxR9kgKieYzGB7xKup8cL_-uew5P4oYPpfnIrA )
Well apart from me and charities like the World Wildlife Fund: https://www.wwf.org.uk/challenges/turn-down-one-degree
And the Met Office: https://weather.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/getclimateready/everyday-actions
And the Climate Change Committee: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/britain-needs-huge-switch-evs-heat-pumps-eat-less-meat-hit-net-zero-2025-02-26/
And the Welsh Government: https://www.airquality.gov.wales/about-air-quality/climate-change/reducing-your-carbon-footprint
And multiple Councils: https://www.havering.gov.uk/caring-local-environment/what-can-you-do
And universities: https://climate.leeds.ac.uk/resource-hub/is-it-too-late-climate-researchers-answer-your-questions/actions-to-tackle-climate-change/
But yes, besides charities, government bodies, the Climate Change Committee, national and devolved governments, councils and universities, besides them, its just me. Only me.
The more interesting question is whether Energetic Bob has done more damage to his side or to his opponents. (Yes, I know that the answer to that is that he has mostly had zero impact because it's Twixtmas and sane people aren't paying any attention, but you know what I mean.)
It certainly has caught out politicians across the parties, apart from Reform, but short of changing or leaving the ECHR then Starmer/ Cooper are powerless to intervene
I would just comment that his tweets were vile and nobody should attempt to condone or excuse them
Even once got he was not entitled to consular assistance either.
And I think that the exercise of control that making a choice gives people is likely to make them willing to hand over more money in aggregate than if someone is making that choice for them.
I do recommend the Hawk Conservancy in Andover for a day out, and a charity to support, though birds of prey might be a bit of a niche concern.
But taking it away once granted is something that should only be done in the most extraordinary circumstances.
Certainly not at the behest of some equally compromised shit like Farage.
https://x.com/johnmcdonnellMP/status/2005648269968363788
I thought a major point people supported the campaign to free Alaa was because of his journey from vile tweets to 10 years in prison for standing up for the human rights of everybody to live in dignity whatever one’s faith, ethnicity, gender or sexuality.
You get all sorts of models so can choose different ones, our previous one used a metal wire rack just like a conventional oven.
Another advantage because they're smaller is the inner components are normally removeable and dishwasher safe. So considerably easier to clean.
The optics being that Starmer has made another clanger by tweeting using words like “delighted” and “top priority”, hence reigniting the whole immigration and citizenship debate, and making himself look like a complete wally in the process and is now rushing out an expression of concern.
I feel a bit sorry for him in this instance. He’s clearly been caught off guard. But it’s a cautionary tale that before politicians (or their staffers) race to praise anyone on Twitter they really should do their due diligence first and think about how their messaging lands. Once again it gives the impression Starmer is not in control of government - not an impression he wants to give to kick-start the new year at a time where his position is looking increasingly shaky.
Interesting point of view. Threads would be pretty quiet if we didn't bring in viewpoints from outside of the the thread that are relevant.
Why not just admit you were wrong?
..While some instances clearly expressed popular anger at the citizen, ostracism was often used preemptively as a way of neutralizing someone thought to be a threat to the state or a potential tyrant...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism
So he's willing to trumpet any old shite as a "top priority" in the void of having any, which then backfires as it was not a priority, so he had no idea what the issue was about, so didn't see the rake lying on the ground before he stepped on it.
Here's a suggestion, if something happens which you don't have the foggiest idea about, don't go screaming out that it was a top priority for you.
Here's another suggestion - get some actual top priorities, and do your damned job.
I’m not convinced but wish her well.
This requires a bit of planning ahead, which has been obvious for a while.
https://x.com/RobertJenrick/status/2005728891114250399
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
"Candid Clara : Top 6 Non-Toxic Air Fryers (2025) – Tried, Tested & PFAS-Free!"
Anyway: oh. quite, with some marshland too as well, to mop up excess flows. All for it. But it needs to be sort of local for local benefit. Like the sailing in that big lake near Oxford whose name I forget, in the loop of the Thames. Not built in another country altogether, cf. Vrynwy Reservoir.
In either case, they're pretty nasty individuals, but just no.
If we can't cope with crappy political debates without resorting to ostracism, then we are lost as a well functioning democracy.
Go look at the global install numbers.
If the Tories ditch Badenoch, Honest Bob is your man. Very cynical, very clever.
Where was Farage until the 11th hour?
If you go down that road then you're opening a large and very unpleasant can of worms.
The Tories’ Shadow Attorney General, Lord Wolfson, is representing Roman Abramovich in a legal case that is delaying the transfer of £2.5bn of assets to benefit the people of Ukraine.
I’ve written to @KemiBadenoch about the conflicts of interest this raises.
https://x.com/JakeBenRichards/status/2005740736432820403
We've fairly regularly changed the rules to make it more difficult to gain citizenship (and no doubt if he gets his way will do so again).
The idea that we should make it easier to take away someone's citizenship for political reasons is a far shittier one.
The too cool for dad phase is a great period.
In much the same way that you can choose your friends but not your family, you can't always choose your fellow citizens.
Demand seems incredibly high to me, not seeing any devaluation there.
I'd say British citizenship is the ultimate Veblen good.
https://x.com/onestpress/status/2005729871411269910
The target is for 95% of electricity on the grid to be "clean" in 2030 - presumably meaning only 5% gas. This target will be much easier to hit if overall electricity demand is lower - i.e. if there are fewer EV cars and heat pumps.
This creates unhelpful incentives for the government if the transition to EV cars or heat pumps happens more quickly than planned, or if AI data centres add a lot more demand to the grid.
The prospect of a government being tied up in knots by its own targets is rather lessened by that other favourite target device - set the target date beyond the next election. Most likely they won't be around to worry about it.
Egypt are looking to revoke,it but has not done so yet.
They’ve palmed a liability off onto us.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/alaa-abd-elfattah-activist-starmer-citizenship-row-b2891447.html
Do you de Nile the existence of Egypt?
As somebody said the language of self deportation and their ain't no black in the Union Jack is the language of the National Front.
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
Will need to press translate. Too long to post here.
https://x.com/mar3e/status/2005662447097573805?s=61
https://x.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1809307747466276896?s=61
Not heard SKS referred to as ‘forensic’ for a while,either.