Again, this is the organisation Farage and (by her own account) Badenoch wish to emulate.
ICE detain husband of Democratic congressional candidate—who is also a disabled U.S. Army veteran.
He is wheelchair bound—after suffering severe injury during training for deployment in Iraq.
Agents arrested him one interview and a ceremony away from becoming a U.S. citizen.
Zahid Chaudhry has been awarded multiple medals for his service: ▪︎Army Service Ribbon ▪︎Global War on Terrorism Service Medal ▪︎Armed Forces Reserve Medal ▪︎Reserve Achievement Medal ▪︎National Defense Service Medal ▪︎Recruitment Achievement Medal ▪︎Army Strength Management Award
After 124 days in detention a federal judge finally ruled he had been wrongfully detained.
This is ridiculous. He’s not cheating the system. He’s following it. He’s playing by the rules and lost four months of his life.
Personally I find it ridiculous that because both Badenoch and Farage have said quite rightly that if we are going to deport the numbers that everyone agrees that we should (or have I been imagining Labour supporters critiquing the Boriswave), we will need an ICE-style organisation, that this apparently translates to replicating ICE's every foible. This is 12-year old level debating.
What are these numbers that "everyone agrees" ? Which "foibles" would you personally eschew ? (Most are inherent in the organisation; if you don't want them, you don't want an ICD style organisation.)
Childish debating is pretend that to explicitly choose an organisation as clearly alien to our democracy as ICE as a model should somehow be exempt from ridicule and contempt.
How is it alien to 'our democracy' to deport people who have no right to be here? And if it isn't alien to do that, if the scale of numbers needing to be deported, and being unwilling to be deported demands it, why would it not be a good idea to have an agency dedicated to the task? The only question is the one Taz poses - whether it is wise to make the direct comparison to ICE, or whether it gives fodder to idiots. I don't know the answer to that. I suspect the idiots would be making the comparison and drawing the idiotic inferences even if Badenoch and Farage were calling our version the cuddly lift home service.
Alien to our democracy (and to America's democracy too for that matter) is bands of armed thugs hauling people off the street because they look a bit foreign, putting them in camps that could reasonably be described as concentration camps, and then deporting them, all without any due process. These include many actual American citizens and children separated from their parents, in some cases deliberately separated.
When Badenoch says her Removals Force will be modelled on the successful ICE, maybe she means it won't be modelled on it. I see no reason to give her any benefit of the non-existent doubt.
Reform and the Tories apparently want to campaign on the issue without and real discussion of the practical implications.
Having labelled it "ICE" they are going to have to be rather more explicit about what exactly they are proposing.
Farage got away with smoke and mirrors in the Brexit campaign. He need to be nailed to the floor this time around.
Reform and Tories aligning themselves so closely to Trump on Ice and Iran will in time be when both lost the next GE
LD and Green will claim theyd never have touched him, had they been in power we'd have been hammered for Tariffs.
Labour hung on to his coattails long enough to get best tariffs on the planet. Starmer refusing to act with aggressive intent on Iran came at just the right time, help by blood thirsty Farage and Badenoch following Trump like poodles might be too late to save Starmer.
As policy positioning though it could give labour 5% Poll boost at least within 12 months, especially with any new Leader bounce.
Starmer could yet capitulate. Don't forget his political antennae are incredibly ineffective.
He could.
Collective responsibility and some very passionate voices even in No 11, Home Office, Foreign Office and Environment will ensure he won't wraken
Labour also have at least half a dozen new intake very recent Armed Forces MPs who have been very influential in lobbying against Trump.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
Are you actually f*ing serious?
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
Jesus wept.
I don't suggest dependency. I suggest a combined effort with costs shared.
On the surface this is an arcane argument between statistics anoraks. In reality Reform are troubled. Their real problem being not YouGov - who like everyone else have a method to analyse the raw data - but the Reform downward curve which is, I think, universal among polling companies.
Can we expect a Reform 'Polling companies lie' campaign in true Trump style?
They are preparing the ground for - the election was unfair / stolen. They did a dry run of this at the recent Manc by-election.
On the surface this is an arcane argument between statistics anoraks. In reality Reform are troubled. Their real problem being not YouGov - who like everyone else have a method to analyse the raw data - but the Reform downward curve which is, I think, universal among polling companies.
Can we expect a Reform 'Polling companies lie' campaign in true Trump style?
If they're on a downward curve, it's mostly because of Rupert Lowe's party.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
Are you actually f*ing serious?
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
Jesus wept.
I don't suggest dependency. I suggest a combined effort with costs shared.
Ok. If it is a sharing of technological data, with no codependency, either in the immediate operation of the system, or in the medium term maintenance of it (ie the French could cut us off without spare parts), I withdraw and I'm open to it.
Just ask the French nicely to get a piece of their independent nuclear deterrent. It wouldn't be nuclear independence per se, but closer collaboration with a regional power on an approximately equivalent level may be preferable to being the(very) junior lickspittle partner in an unstable coalition with the USA, who appear to have quite a low opinion of us.
This is possibly the most idiotic thing I've read on PB all month.
Perhaps a joint programme with Putin would suit you better?
I always play the post not the man, so I'll just observe that recently your posts have been baleful, resentful hyperpolitical drivel, that always seems to come from a very bleak place. Feel better.
The problem we currently face is a nuclear programme that depends on another independent nation, who are free to elect someone that we cannot depend upon, and who may oppose our interests.
Enter stage left the utterly loony idea of 'a piece of' the French nuclear deterrent. Quite apart from the idea of France nuking someone because they've nuked Britain - thus laying France open to nuclear attack being f***ing idiotic, what if they go and elect Marine Le Pen? Who do you suggest we go to for 'a piece' then?
It's a classic of unserious remoaner guff from the 'serious people in the room'. Completely deranged, but it involves throwing money at the French combined with a nice bit of eating crow for the Brexiteer crowd, so it must be a great idea.
“ I always play the post not the man…”
Erm. Recollections may differ…
(and yes, I know I frequently play the man not the ball. But I’m not claiming otherwise)
Strictly speaking I was playing the man just then, because he had a go at me, and it's true his recent posts have been dire. We all take the bait sometimes. But overwhelmingly I would back myself that I attack arguments. Strongly sometimes, but arguments, not people.
So "This is possibly the most idiotic thing I've read on PB all month.", literally the previous thing you said, strictly speaking isn't playing the man?
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Utterly loony. You make duff calls on occasion, but this takes the cake.
I'm not recommending it. But we're never going to be willing to pay for our own totally independent one, and we already have a nuclear co-operation treaty with France and a new Nuclear Steering Group following the Northwood declaration.
So, a shared missile or deterrent system with France is probably the most likely next choice if we detach from the USA.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
Are you actually f*ing serious?
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
Jesus wept.
This is a rare occasion where I agree with you.
I see no point in switching a dependency upon the Oval Office, with a dependency upon the Elysee Palace.
There is no point in switching a dependency upon a potential Trump, with a dependency upon a potential Le Pen.
Just develop our own version and move on.
And this is a far from uncommon occasion where I disagree with both of you.
How is replacing Trump with Le Pen an improvement?
How is replacing the Oval Office with the Elysee Palace an improvement?
Either we desire an independent, nuclear deterrent or we don't. If we do, then logic dictates it should be independent. If we don't, we may as well not have it.
The difference is that the US could hang us out to dry. The geographical closeness of Britain and France literally means that a nuclear attack on one is an attack on the other - two entirely different dynamics at play.
Independent remains better. We can both cooperate to extend our nuclear umbrella over Europe, but having two operationally independent deterrents makes Europe as a whole much better protected than under one combined umbrella.
We do need to think about a future France under either a Bardella, or a very Gaulliste patriot who considers Britain Albion Perfide. And they need to worry about a Britain captured by Reform or worse, and handing over secrets to the Russians.
The trouble is that we don't trust France, and they don't trust us either.
Big energy curtailment day today. Current marginal elec price is negative: -16.67.
A day where if we’d managed to sort transmission, and electrified heating and transport more quickly, we’d be happily looking on at the Straits of Hormuz with a sense of detachment.
Storage is the big item here, I think.
When solar + storage drops a bit further - maybe 2-5 years - it will be the cheapest option. I'm talking 12 hours of storage, by the way.
And before the "using up farmland" nonsense starts a - a chap I know whose converting to solar farming doesn't even dig footings for the panel frames - they are held down with weights, just sitting on the ground. At first they used concrete blocks - now he uses rock gabions. Just a mesh cage attached to the frame leg. Put the frame in place, pour in rocks....
He runs sheep in and around the panels.
Even the power electronics are put in a small shed that's bolted to a concrete slab that's just placed on the ground.
I did the calculation and IRC land equivalent to 0.5% of current farmland would cover the entire electricity demand of the UK through solar - not that anyone would do that of course.
The supposedly "impressive" Coutinho is one of those tilting at that particular windmill, so to speak.
Interesting note re Farmers.
A number round Devon reducing Cattle, increasing lamb and pork as can sit along side solar farms
Apart from solar having a very marginal requirement on land that could be used for farming, I don't even understand why people object in principle. A field used to generate electricity is a highly productive field.
They're as ugly as hell. A total blot on the landscape.
Plus, they generate leccy during periods of low demand, and fail to generate during periods of high demand.
When I get elected*, I will be putting a stop to them at every opportunity.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Utterly loony. You make duff calls on occasion, but this takes the cake.
I rarely agree with Casino, but Casino is on the money this time.
It's a reflexive remoaner thing to say. You agree because it tickles your political pickle. Unfortunately also happens to be a butt-arse awful idea that puts us in exactly the same situation as 'sharing' the deterrent with the US. France aren't any more beholden to us, or any less independent, or any more a loyal ally, or any more sentimentally attached to us, or any less likely to elect people that you find objectionable, than the US.
Yes, that's exactly why my comment got so many likes from Remoaners and the left-liberal herd.
I was simply predicting the most likely next alternative we'd go for, if we detached from the US on it.
If you'll forgive me @MoonRabbit, repatriating the British deterrent and its delivery system is doable. You do it by doing it in slices, exploring alternates, and keep it off the books (see the Chevaline project for an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevaline ). All that is needed os the will of a competent government
Unfortunately I think that (for different reasons) Starmer, Badenoch and Farage don't fall into that category
You need:
(a) enriched uranium or plutonium
We have a civilian nuclear industry so we have the raw materials. We don't have HEU, currently. But this also isn't that technically complicted to achieve; you just need a bloody load of centrifuges, which can be relatively easily and cheaply acquired.
(b) to build a warhead
Nuclear warheads are not that complicated. The basics, unless you want to go the hydrogen bomb route, are terribly simple. Sphere of HEU. Shaped charges. With today's modern electronics, it really wouldn't be that complicated.
(c) a delivery system (i.e. a missile)
There's really no reason why Storm Shadow could not carry a nuclear warhead. It would only be a small one (it can carry a 450kg warhead), and there are clearly some engineering challenges involves. But ultimately Storm Shadow (like every cruise missile) is basically just a plane, and while it might look a little ungainly to stick a nuclear warhead in there, it could clearly be done.
(It's a lot easier to make a cruide missile nuclear capable than a ballastic one.)
If you have a plane-based deterrent, then you need to keep several in the air 24/7 (not the same ones: you rotate) because the time to get them in the air from the ground base is greater than the time it takes the Russians to nuke the ground base. SLBMs are preferred for a reason.
Only if the most likely usage is against a surprise first strike by Russia. That, I suggest, is not the most likely usage.
I thought that, essentially, that was the only usage.
Additionally, if you don't have them in the air continuously then any time you put them up is immediately an escalatory step. You risk encouraging people to attack you before you can do so.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
Are you actually f*ing serious?
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
Jesus wept.
This is a rare occasion where I agree with you.
I see no point in switching a dependency upon the Oval Office, with a dependency upon the Elysee Palace.
There is no point in switching a dependency upon a potential Trump, with a dependency upon a potential Le Pen.
Just develop our own version and move on.
And this is a far from uncommon occasion where I disagree with both of you.
How is replacing Trump with Le Pen an improvement?
How is replacing the Oval Office with the Elysee Palace an improvement?
Either we desire an independent, nuclear deterrent or we don't. If we do, then logic dictates it should be independent. If we don't, we may as well not have it.
She is better than Trump (almost anything is) but to your binary I don't desire one. It's a poor use of defence money imo. I've yet to hear a non-fantastical scenario where having Trident or an itteration of it makes the difference between a good and bad outcome in a conflict. Other capabilities are more important and the more we spend on a nuclear deterrent the less we have of those.
Big energy curtailment day today. Current marginal elec price is negative: -16.67.
A day where if we’d managed to sort transmission, and electrified heating and transport more quickly, we’d be happily looking on at the Straits of Hormuz with a sense of detachment.
Storage is the big item here, I think.
When solar + storage drops a bit further - maybe 2-5 years - it will be the cheapest option. I'm talking 12 hours of storage, by the way.
And before the "using up farmland" nonsense starts a - a chap I know whose converting to solar farming doesn't even dig footings for the panel frames - they are held down with weights, just sitting on the ground. At first they used concrete blocks - now he uses rock gabions. Just a mesh cage attached to the frame leg. Put the frame in place, pour in rocks....
He runs sheep in and around the panels.
Even the power electronics are put in a small shed that's bolted to a concrete slab that's just placed on the ground.
I did the calculation and IRC land equivalent to 0.5% of current farmland would cover the entire electricity demand of the UK through solar - not that anyone would do that of course.
The supposedly "impressive" Coutinho is one of those tilting at that particular windmill, so to speak.
Interesting note re Farmers.
A number round Devon reducing Cattle, increasing lamb and pork as can sit along side solar farms
Apart from solar having a very marginal requirement on land that could be used for farming, I don't even understand why people object in principle. A field used to generate electricity is a highly productive field.
Indeed and with fast developing technology the ability to still farm on the same land is a win win
A few sheep might be able to wander around. On land that could be growing vegetables or grain. Or rewilded, if there is no need to grow food there.
The only place for panels is on top of man made structures. Not on England's green and pleasant land.
On the surface this is an arcane argument between statistics anoraks. In reality Reform are troubled. Their real problem being not YouGov - who like everyone else have a method to analyse the raw data - but the Reform downward curve which is, I think, universal among polling companies.
Can we expect a Reform 'Polling companies lie' campaign in true Trump style?
If you'll forgive me @MoonRabbit, repatriating the British deterrent and its delivery system is doable. You do it by doing it in slices, exploring alternates, and keep it off the books (see the Chevaline project for an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevaline ). All that is needed os the will of a competent government
Unfortunately I think that (for different reasons) Starmer, Badenoch and Farage don't fall into that category
You need:
(a) enriched uranium or plutonium
We have a civilian nuclear industry so we have the raw materials. We don't have HEU, currently. But this also isn't that technically complicted to achieve; you just need a bloody load of centrifuges, which can be relatively easily and cheaply acquired.
(b) to build a warhead
Nuclear warheads are not that complicated. The basics, unless you want to go the hydrogen bomb route, are terribly simple. Sphere of HEU. Shaped charges. With today's modern electronics, it really wouldn't be that complicated.
(c) a delivery system (i.e. a missile)
There's really no reason why Storm Shadow could not carry a nuclear warhead. It would only be a small one (it can carry a 450kg warhead), and there are clearly some engineering challenges involves. But ultimately Storm Shadow (like every cruise missile) is basically just a plane, and while it might look a little ungainly to stick a nuclear warhead in there, it could clearly be done.
(It's a lot easier to make a cruide missile nuclear capable than a ballastic one.)
If you have a plane-based deterrent, then you need to keep several in the air 24/7 (not the same ones: you rotate) because the time to get them in the air from the ground base is greater than the time it takes the Russians to nuke the ground base. SLBMs are preferred for a reason.
Only if the most likely usage is against a surprise first strike by Russia. That, I suggest, is not the most likely usage.
I thought that, essentially, that was the only usage.
Additionally, if you don't have them in the air continuously then any time you put them up is immediately an escalatory step. You risk encouraging people to attack you before you can do so.
And how does an adversary distinguish between a conventional and a nuclear cruise missile ?
It's one of the reasons the west negotiated away the shorter range nukes (like Pershing), back in the day.
Big energy curtailment day today. Current marginal elec price is negative: -16.67.
A day where if we’d managed to sort transmission, and electrified heating and transport more quickly, we’d be happily looking on at the Straits of Hormuz with a sense of detachment.
Storage is the big item here, I think.
When solar + storage drops a bit further - maybe 2-5 years - it will be the cheapest option. I'm talking 12 hours of storage, by the way.
And before the "using up farmland" nonsense starts a - a chap I know whose converting to solar farming doesn't even dig footings for the panel frames - they are held down with weights, just sitting on the ground. At first they used concrete blocks - now he uses rock gabions. Just a mesh cage attached to the frame leg. Put the frame in place, pour in rocks....
He runs sheep in and around the panels.
Even the power electronics are put in a small shed that's bolted to a concrete slab that's just placed on the ground.
I did the calculation and IRC land equivalent to 0.5% of current farmland would cover the entire electricity demand of the UK through solar - not that anyone would do that of course.
The supposedly "impressive" Coutinho is one of those tilting at that particular windmill, so to speak.
Interesting note re Farmers.
A number round Devon reducing Cattle, increasing lamb and pork as can sit along side solar farms
Apart from solar having a very marginal requirement on land that could be used for farming, I don't even understand why people object in principle. A field used to generate electricity is a highly productive field.
They're as ugly as hell. A total blot on the landscape.
Plus, they generate leccy during periods of low demand, and fail to generate during periods of high demand.
When I get elected*, I will be putting a stop to them at every opportunity.
*This is not going to happen.
The idea is low demand is still demand, so other forms could be turned down, such as gas. If the worse comes to the worse battery storage could be used. We do need to develop that more though.
On the surface this is an arcane argument between statistics anoraks. In reality Reform are troubled. Their real problem being not YouGov - who like everyone else have a method to analyse the raw data - but the Reform downward curve which is, I think, universal among polling companies.
Can we expect a Reform 'Polling companies lie' campaign in true Trump style?
Is Nadhim Zahawi still connected to YouGov?
Has Farage really become one of those awful bores that whine about polling companies whose results they don't like?
He'll be counting how many times people post them next
On the surface this is an arcane argument between statistics anoraks. In reality Reform are troubled. Their real problem being not YouGov - who like everyone else have a method to analyse the raw data - but the Reform downward curve which is, I think, universal among polling companies.
Can we expect a Reform 'Polling companies lie' campaign in true Trump style?
WarMonitor🇺🇦🇬🇧 @WarMonitor3 · 28m US is holding off currently sending warships to the Strait of Hormuz with navy officers saying Iranian drones and anti-ship missiles could turn the area into a kill box for American sailors-WSJ
That can't be right I thought Iran was completely defeated?
Just ask the French nicely to get a piece of their independent nuclear deterrent. It wouldn't be nuclear independence per se, but closer collaboration with a regional power on an approximately equivalent level may be preferable to being the(very) junior lickspittle partner in an unstable coalition with the USA, who appear to have quite a low opinion of us.
This is possibly the most idiotic thing I've read on PB all month.
Perhaps a joint programme with Putin would suit you better?
I always play the post not the man, so I'll just observe that recently your posts have been baleful, resentful hyperpolitical drivel, that always seems to come from a very bleak place. Feel better.
The problem we currently face is a nuclear programme that depends on another independent nation, who are free to elect someone that we cannot depend upon, and who may oppose our interests.
Enter stage left the utterly loony idea of 'a piece of' the French nuclear deterrent. Quite apart from the idea of France nuking someone because they've nuked Britain - thus laying France open to nuclear attack being f***ing idiotic, what if they go and elect Marine Le Pen? Who do you suggest we go to for 'a piece' then?
It's a classic of unserious remoaner guff from the 'serious people in the room'. Completely deranged, but it involves throwing money at the French combined with a nice bit of eating crow for the Brexiteer crowd, so it must be a great idea.
“ I always play the post not the man…”
Erm. Recollections may differ…
(and yes, I know I frequently play the man not the ball. But I’m not claiming otherwise)
Strictly speaking I was playing the man just then, because he had a go at me, and it's true his recent posts have been dire. We all take the bait sometimes. But overwhelmingly I would back myself that I attack arguments. Strongly sometimes, but arguments, not people.
So "This is possibly the most idiotic thing I've read on PB all month.", literally the previous thing you said, strictly speaking isn't playing the man?
No.
If we can't air half-baked ideas on PB, where can we do that? But most of us can acknowledge other commentators' efforts in this regard without calling them "idiotic", "deranged" and "loony". It's a life skill.
On the surface this is an arcane argument between statistics anoraks. In reality Reform are troubled. Their real problem being not YouGov - who like everyone else have a method to analyse the raw data - but the Reform downward curve which is, I think, universal among polling companies.
Can we expect a Reform 'Polling companies lie' campaign in true Trump style?
If they're on a downward curve, it's mostly because of Rupert Lowe's party.
The Wikiworm had Reform peaking at about 31% in October, down to about 27% now. A fair chunk of that probably is losses to Lowe, but the timings don't work for that to be the whole story.
On the surface this is an arcane argument between statistics anoraks. In reality Reform are troubled. Their real problem being not YouGov - who like everyone else have a method to analyse the raw data - but the Reform downward curve which is, I think, universal among polling companies.
Can we expect a Reform 'Polling companies lie' campaign in true Trump style?
If they're on a downward curve, it's mostly because of Rupert Lowe's party.
The Wikiworm had Reform peaking at about 31% in October, down to about 27% now. A fair chunk of that probably is losses to Lowe, but the timings don't work for that to be the whole story.
There's been two other factors which have impacted Farage's ratings and Reform
1) The defections of those nice cuddly Tories Jenrick and Braverman.
2) Trump being an absolute [redacted] about the UK military dead.
3) Reform councils being useless and doing the exact opposite of what they promised
Farage has successfully bullied YouGov. What a tosser.
That’s the asymmetry that gives the far right supremacy in its early years before others work out how to deal with it. The reticence to standing up and fighting, and therefore being seen as partisan, is strong and hard to shift.
Two cheers for the nuclear reforms Could be better; but could be a lot worse.
Britain is the most expensive country in the world to build a nuclear power plant.
The Fingleton Review challenged the Government to deliver a radical programme of planning and regulatory reform to make it cheaper and quicker to build nuclear power plants.
The Government have now published a full response and implementation plan.
Did they deliver 'full implementation' or is it another Labour U-Turn?
On safety and reactor design, this is the radical reset of nuclear regulation the review demanded.
On planning, this is the most radical infrastructure reform agenda the govt has put forward yet.
However, it is not 'full' implementation.
Some key measures have been watered down. For example, Habs Regs reforms have become 'updated guidance' and lack statutory underpinning.
Some have been rejected such as the call for statutory time limits for permits and the call to make community benefits a material consideration in planning.
Overall, it's really good news for nuclear (and therefore energy security). This could end up as Starmer's best legacy as PM.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
Are you actually f*ing serious?
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
Jesus wept.
I don't suggest dependency. I suggest a combined effort with costs shared.
How do you combine the effort and share costs without creating dependencies?
And why would France agree to that, when they already have their own independent system?
Either we want an independent system, or we don't. If we do, we should develop it, independently. We have the technology, the materials, all we lack is the manufacturing so get on with it and move on.
Because their own system is due replacement.
Collaboration without dependency on either side isn't impossible (though this is the French we're talking about).
There's certainly a large overlap in interests when it comes to deterrence, and it would be entirely possible (as an example) to coordinate on times at sea.
No need to share operational details beyond that, but it might considerably reduce the cost of maintaining a continuous at sea deterrent for both countries. Should we fall out, we simply cease that coordination.
Similar considerations might apply to tech and other cost sharing.
There is no way that France would fire a nuclear weapon, thus putting its own country in-line for obliteration, in response to a nuclear attack on the UK. And there is no way that the UK would do the same for France. It wouldn't be right for either country to be asked to do that for the other, nor would it be credible to an enemy that we would.
Big energy curtailment day today. Current marginal elec price is negative: -16.67.
A day where if we’d managed to sort transmission, and electrified heating and transport more quickly, we’d be happily looking on at the Straits of Hormuz with a sense of detachment.
Storage is the big item here, I think.
When solar + storage drops a bit further - maybe 2-5 years - it will be the cheapest option. I'm talking 12 hours of storage, by the way.
And before the "using up farmland" nonsense starts a - a chap I know whose converting to solar farming doesn't even dig footings for the panel frames - they are held down with weights, just sitting on the ground. At first they used concrete blocks - now he uses rock gabions. Just a mesh cage attached to the frame leg. Put the frame in place, pour in rocks....
He runs sheep in and around the panels.
Even the power electronics are put in a small shed that's bolted to a concrete slab that's just placed on the ground.
I did the calculation and IRC land equivalent to 0.5% of current farmland would cover the entire electricity demand of the UK through solar - not that anyone would do that of course.
The supposedly "impressive" Coutinho is one of those tilting at that particular windmill, so to speak.
Interesting note re Farmers.
A number round Devon reducing Cattle, increasing lamb and pork as can sit along side solar farms
Apart from solar having a very marginal requirement on land that could be used for farming, I don't even understand why people object in principle. A field used to generate electricity is a highly productive field.
They're as ugly as hell. A total blot on the landscape.
Plus, they generate leccy during periods of low demand, and fail to generate during periods of high demand.
When I get elected*, I will be putting a stop to them at every opportunity.
*This is not going to happen.
The idea is low demand is still demand, so other forms could be turned down, such as gas. If the worse comes to the worse battery storage could be used. We do need to develop that more though.
We certainly need a heck of a lot of batteries in order to load shift intermittent renewables.
But when it comes to inter-seasonal shifting, you need a bulk storage vector such as Green Hydrogen. Produce it from surplus solar in the summer and use it in gas turbines or fuel cells on those winter days with no sun and no wind.
WarMonitor🇺🇦🇬🇧 @WarMonitor3 · 28m US is holding off currently sending warships to the Strait of Hormuz with navy officers saying Iranian drones and anti-ship missiles could turn the area into a kill box for American sailors-WSJ
There is no realistic* military way to force open Hormuz. You either have to live with it being permanently closed or negotiate with the Iranians.
If I were a Gulf state - despite a hatred for Iran that knows no depths. - I would be on the phone to Tehran, and ask them, please open Hormuz and stop bombing us . Name your price. Fuck the Americans, why should we see our country ruined?
* There is a hypothetical option of a Gallipoli style campaign against the Iranians. No-one in their right mind s would do it, precisely because it would be Gallipoli style.
Would it really be prohibitively expensive to go it alone? Britain is already spending the money to build the submarines. It's already spending the money to build the warheads.
We're only talking about the missiles and, let's be honest, rocket science isn't exactly brain surgery.
The Ukrainians are making pretty rapid progress building new ballistic missiles. We could probably give the contract to one of their defence companies and it might end up being cheaper than Trident.
WarMonitor🇺🇦🇬🇧 @WarMonitor3 · 28m US is holding off currently sending warships to the Strait of Hormuz with navy officers saying Iranian drones and anti-ship missiles could turn the area into a kill box for American sailors-WSJ
There is no realistic* military way to force open Hormuz. You either have to live with it being permanently closed or negotiate with the Iranians.
If I were a Gulf state - despite a hatred for Iran that knows no depths. - I would be on the phone to Tehran, and ask them, please open Hormuz and stop bombing us . Name your price. Fuck the Americans, why should we see our country ruined?
* There is a hypothetical option of a Gallipoli style campaign against the Iranians. No-one in their right mind s would do it, precisely because it would be Gallipoli style.
Eminently sensible. The US and Israel doesn’t give a fuck about them so why should they care the other way.
"Director of the National Economic Council of the United States Kevin Hassett, who said this conflict could last four to six weeks.
That repeats claims we’ve heard from President Trump in recent days, when he said the United States is ahead of schedule in this operation. We have also heard similar remarks from Energy Secretary Chris Wright.
But these statements come as Iran’s foreign minister says the country is willing and able to fight for as long as it takes.
Here in Washington, many analysts and experts interpret that as Iran preparing for a war of attrition – a strategy of endurance designed to drag this conflict out politically and economically.
If the White House cannot maintain its narrative of a short war, it’s plausible that Washington could be forced to return to the negotiating table and maybe even be seeking out a diplomatic off-ramp."
Just ask the French nicely to get a piece of their independent nuclear deterrent. It wouldn't be nuclear independence per se, but closer collaboration with a regional power on an approximately equivalent level may be preferable to being the(very) junior lickspittle partner in an unstable coalition with the USA, who appear to have quite a low opinion of us.
This is possibly the most idiotic thing I've read on PB all month.
Perhaps a joint programme with Putin would suit you better?
I always play the post not the man, so I'll just observe that recently your posts have been baleful, resentful hyperpolitical drivel, that always seems to come from a very bleak place. Feel better.
The problem we currently face is a nuclear programme that depends on another independent nation, who are free to elect someone that we cannot depend upon, and who may oppose our interests.
Enter stage left the utterly loony idea of 'a piece of' the French nuclear deterrent. Quite apart from the idea of France nuking someone because they've nuked Britain - thus laying France open to nuclear attack being f***ing idiotic, what if they go and elect Marine Le Pen? Who do you suggest we go to for 'a piece' then?
It's a classic of unserious remoaner guff from the 'serious people in the room'. Completely deranged, but it involves throwing money at the French combined with a nice bit of eating crow for the Brexiteer crowd, so it must be a great idea.
“ I always play the post not the man…”
Erm. Recollections may differ…
(and yes, I know I frequently play the man not the ball. But I’m not claiming otherwise)
Strictly speaking I was playing the man just then, because he had a go at me, and it's true his recent posts have been dire. We all take the bait sometimes. But overwhelmingly I would back myself that I attack arguments. Strongly sometimes, but arguments, not people.
So "This is possibly the most idiotic thing I've read on PB all month.", literally the previous thing you said, strictly speaking isn't playing the man?
No.
If we can't air half-baked ideas on PB, where can we do that? But most of us can acknowledge other commentators' efforts in this regard without calling them "idiotic", "deranged" and "loony". It's a life skill.
I don't hold back on what I think about ideas. I hold back (or try to) on what I think about people. Ideas are there to be critiqued, and people putting them out should be willing for them to be attacked with vigour. When I have put my ideas out here, I've been called a traitor to my country.
WarMonitor🇺🇦🇬🇧 @WarMonitor3 · 28m US is holding off currently sending warships to the Strait of Hormuz with navy officers saying Iranian drones and anti-ship missiles could turn the area into a kill box for American sailors-WSJ
There is no realistic* military way to force open Hormuz. You either have to live with it being permanently closed or negotiate with the Iranians.
If I were a Gulf state - despite a hatred for Iran that knows no depths. - I would be on the phone to Tehran, and ask them, please open Hormuz and stop bombing us . Name your price. Fuck the Americans, why should we see our country ruined?
* There is a hypothetical option of a Gallipoli style campaign against the Iranians. No-one in their right mind s would do it, precisely because it would be Gallipoli style.
Big energy curtailment day today. Current marginal elec price is negative: -16.67.
A day where if we’d managed to sort transmission, and electrified heating and transport more quickly, we’d be happily looking on at the Straits of Hormuz with a sense of detachment.
Storage is the big item here, I think.
When solar + storage drops a bit further - maybe 2-5 years - it will be the cheapest option. I'm talking 12 hours of storage, by the way.
And before the "using up farmland" nonsense starts a - a chap I know whose converting to solar farming doesn't even dig footings for the panel frames - they are held down with weights, just sitting on the ground. At first they used concrete blocks - now he uses rock gabions. Just a mesh cage attached to the frame leg. Put the frame in place, pour in rocks....
He runs sheep in and around the panels.
Even the power electronics are put in a small shed that's bolted to a concrete slab that's just placed on the ground.
I did the calculation and IRC land equivalent to 0.5% of current farmland would cover the entire electricity demand of the UK through solar - not that anyone would do that of course.
The supposedly "impressive" Coutinho is one of those tilting at that particular windmill, so to speak.
Interesting note re Farmers.
A number round Devon reducing Cattle, increasing lamb and pork as can sit along side solar farms
Apart from solar having a very marginal requirement on land that could be used for farming, I don't even understand why people object in principle. A field used to generate electricity is a highly productive field.
They're as ugly as hell. A total blot on the landscape.
Plus, they generate leccy during periods of low demand, and fail to generate during periods of high demand.
When I get elected*, I will be putting a stop to them at every opportunity.
*This is not going to happen.
The idea is low demand is still demand, so other forms could be turned down, such as gas. If the worse comes to the worse battery storage could be used. We do need to develop that more though.
We certainly need a heck of a lot of batteries in order to load shift intermittent renewables.
But when it comes to inter-seasonal shifting, you need a bulk storage vector such as Green Hydrogen. Produce it from surplus solar in the summer and use it in gas turbines or fuel cells on those winter days with no sun and no wind.
Bulk storage of hydrogen over the long term?
Pressurised doesn’t work (leakage) and cryo loses a non trivial percentage. Per day.
Farage has successfully bullied YouGov. What a tosser.
That’s the asymmetry that gives the far right supremacy in its early years before others work out how to deal with it. The reticence to standing up and fighting, and therefore being seen as partisan, is strong and hard to shift.
Yes, "when they go low we go high" proved lacking as a winning strategy, sadly.
That “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot” is the only England rugby union song is, I reckon, the greatest tribute to any pun nickname, ever
Do you all know the story behind it?
Other than Wales most Rugby songs are utterly naff.
It's one area where football wins hands down.
Sounds like a no from you..
The song was first sung at Twickenham during the 1987 Middlesex Sevens
A young winger called Martin Offiah scored several scintillating tries for Rosslyn Park. Their fans gave him the nickname Chariots (Chariots Offiah; geddit?)
So they sang the chariots song
(Offiah was so good that the Widnes scouts made sure he never played Union again)
The next year Chris Oti scored a hat trick for England, and the song was reprised
Big energy curtailment day today. Current marginal elec price is negative: -16.67.
A day where if we’d managed to sort transmission, and electrified heating and transport more quickly, we’d be happily looking on at the Straits of Hormuz with a sense of detachment.
Storage is the big item here, I think.
When solar + storage drops a bit further - maybe 2-5 years - it will be the cheapest option. I'm talking 12 hours of storage, by the way.
And before the "using up farmland" nonsense starts a - a chap I know whose converting to solar farming doesn't even dig footings for the panel frames - they are held down with weights, just sitting on the ground. At first they used concrete blocks - now he uses rock gabions. Just a mesh cage attached to the frame leg. Put the frame in place, pour in rocks....
He runs sheep in and around the panels.
Even the power electronics are put in a small shed that's bolted to a concrete slab that's just placed on the ground.
I did the calculation and IRC land equivalent to 0.5% of current farmland would cover the entire electricity demand of the UK through solar - not that anyone would do that of course.
The supposedly "impressive" Coutinho is one of those tilting at that particular windmill, so to speak.
Interesting note re Farmers.
A number round Devon reducing Cattle, increasing lamb and pork as can sit along side solar farms
Apart from solar having a very marginal requirement on land that could be used for farming, I don't even understand why people object in principle. A field used to generate electricity is a highly productive field.
They're as ugly as hell. A total blot on the landscape.
Plus, they generate leccy during periods of low demand, and fail to generate during periods of high demand.
When I get elected*, I will be putting a stop to them at every opportunity.
*This is not going to happen.
The idea is low demand is still demand, so other forms could be turned down, such as gas. If the worse comes to the worse battery storage could be used. We do need to develop that more though.
We certainly need a heck of a lot of batteries in order to load shift intermittent renewables.
But when it comes to inter-seasonal shifting, you need a bulk storage vector such as Green Hydrogen. Produce it from surplus solar in the summer and use it in gas turbines or fuel cells on those winter days with no sun and no wind.
Bulk storage of hydrogen over the long term?
Pressurised doesn’t work (leakage) and cryo loses a non trivial percentage. Per day.
Batteries are cheaper and work.
Batteries don't work that well on seasonal timescales, certainly not economically.
The easiest way to store hydrogen might be to convert it into methane. We know how to store that. Britain would have to build a lot more methane storage, though. The other advantage is that, if you're generating methane from excess renewable electricity, then you don't need to replace everyone's gas boiler and cooker.
That “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot” is the only England rugby union song is, I reckon, the greatest tribute to any pun nickname, ever
Do you all know the story behind it?
Other than Wales most Rugby songs are utterly naff.
It's one area where football wins hands down.
Sounds like a no from you..
The song was first sung at Twickenham during the 1987 Middlesex Sevens
A young winger called Martin Offiah scored several scintillating tries for Rosslyn Park. Their fans gave him the nickname Chariots (Chariots Offiah; geddit?)
So they sang the chariots song
(Offiah was so good that the Widnes scouts made sure he never played Union again)
The next year Chris Oti scored a hat trick for England, and the song was reprised
Now it’s the England Rugby song
It's a good story, but it's notable that English soccer fans at many clubs do that sort of thing for most of their players, while England rugby fans did it once, nearly 40 years ago.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Utterly loony. You make duff calls on occasion, but this takes the cake.
I rarely agree with Casino, but Casino is on the money this time.
It's a reflexive remoaner thing to say. You agree because it tickles your political pickle. Unfortunately also happens to be a butt-arse awful idea that puts us in exactly the same situation as 'sharing' the deterrent with the US. France aren't any more beholden to us, or any less independent, or any more a loyal ally, or any more sentimentally attached to us, or any less likely to elect people that you find objectionable, than the US.
Yes, that's exactly why my comment got so many likes from Remoaners and the left-liberal herd.
I was simply predicting the most likely next alternative we'd go for, if we detached from the US on it.
I don't like to be considered part of the left liberal herd - although I'm happy enough with Remoaner - so wish to point out that although I was one of those 'likes' I'm more of a scrap trident and spend on other defence capabilities person rather than massively wanting to joint venture on a nuclear deterrent with Les Blues.
Big energy curtailment day today. Current marginal elec price is negative: -16.67.
A day where if we’d managed to sort transmission, and electrified heating and transport more quickly, we’d be happily looking on at the Straits of Hormuz with a sense of detachment.
Storage is the big item here, I think.
When solar + storage drops a bit further - maybe 2-5 years - it will be the cheapest option. I'm talking 12 hours of storage, by the way.
And before the "using up farmland" nonsense starts a - a chap I know whose converting to solar farming doesn't even dig footings for the panel frames - they are held down with weights, just sitting on the ground. At first they used concrete blocks - now he uses rock gabions. Just a mesh cage attached to the frame leg. Put the frame in place, pour in rocks....
He runs sheep in and around the panels.
Even the power electronics are put in a small shed that's bolted to a concrete slab that's just placed on the ground.
I did the calculation and IRC land equivalent to 0.5% of current farmland would cover the entire electricity demand of the UK through solar - not that anyone would do that of course.
The supposedly "impressive" Coutinho is one of those tilting at that particular windmill, so to speak.
Interesting note re Farmers.
A number round Devon reducing Cattle, increasing lamb and pork as can sit along side solar farms
Apart from solar having a very marginal requirement on land that could be used for farming, I don't even understand why people object in principle. A field used to generate electricity is a highly productive field.
They're as ugly as hell. A total blot on the landscape.
Plus, they generate leccy during periods of low demand, and fail to generate during periods of high demand.
When I get elected*, I will be putting a stop to them at every opportunity.
*This is not going to happen.
The idea is low demand is still demand, so other forms could be turned down, such as gas. If the worse comes to the worse battery storage could be used. We do need to develop that more though.
We certainly need a heck of a lot of batteries in order to load shift intermittent renewables.
But when it comes to inter-seasonal shifting, you need a bulk storage vector such as Green Hydrogen. Produce it from surplus solar in the summer and use it in gas turbines or fuel cells on those winter days with no sun and no wind.
Bulk storage of hydrogen over the long term?
Pressurised doesn’t work (leakage) and cryo loses a non trivial percentage. Per day.
Batteries are cheaper and work.
Salt caverns. Like we do with natural gas.
We'll also have a fair bit of high pressure line pack available if/when Project Union gets built.
He might wraken, it has to be said. He's the kind of person who wrakes. Sometimes he does it to mythological sea creatures. That's when he wrakens the krakens.
Again, this is the organisation Farage and (by her own account) Badenoch wish to emulate.
ICE detain husband of Democratic congressional candidate—who is also a disabled U.S. Army veteran.
He is wheelchair bound—after suffering severe injury during training for deployment in Iraq.
Agents arrested him one interview and a ceremony away from becoming a U.S. citizen.
Zahid Chaudhry has been awarded multiple medals for his service: ▪︎Army Service Ribbon ▪︎Global War on Terrorism Service Medal ▪︎Armed Forces Reserve Medal ▪︎Reserve Achievement Medal ▪︎National Defense Service Medal ▪︎Recruitment Achievement Medal ▪︎Army Strength Management Award
After 124 days in detention a federal judge finally ruled he had been wrongfully detained.
This is ridiculous. He’s not cheating the system. He’s following it. He’s playing by the rules and lost four months of his life.
Personally I find it ridiculous that because both Badenoch and Farage have said quite rightly that if we are going to deport the numbers that everyone agrees that we should (or have I been imagining Labour supporters critiquing the Boriswave), we will need an ICE-style organisation, that this apparently translates to replicating ICE's every foible. This is 12-year old level debating.
What are these numbers that "everyone agrees" ? Which "foibles" would you personally eschew ? (Most are inherent in the organisation; if you don't want them, you don't want an ICD style organisation.)
Childish debating is pretend that to explicitly choose an organisation as clearly alien to our democracy as ICE as a model should somehow be exempt from ridicule and contempt.
How is it alien to 'our democracy' to deport people who have no right to be here? And if it isn't alien to do that, if the scale of numbers needing to be deported, and being unwilling to be deported demands it, why would it not be a good idea to have an agency dedicated to the task? The only question is the one Taz poses - whether it is wise to make the direct comparison to ICE, or whether it gives fodder to idiots. I don't know the answer to that. I suspect the idiots would be making the comparison and drawing the idiotic inferences even if Badenoch and Farage were calling our version the cuddly lift home service.
Alien to our democracy (and to America's democracy too for that matter) is bands of armed thugs hauling people off the street because they look a bit foreign, putting them in camps that could reasonably be described as concentration camps, and then deporting them, all without any due process. These include many actual American citizens and children separated from their parents, in some cases deliberately separated.
When Badenoch says her Removals Force will be modelled on the successful ICE, maybe she means it won't be modelled on it. I see no reason to give her any benefit of the non-existent doubt.
Reform and the Tories apparently want to campaign on the issue without and real discussion of the practical implications.
Having labelled it "ICE" they are going to have to be rather more explicit about what exactly they are proposing.
Farage got away with smoke and mirrors in the Brexit campaign. He need to be nailed to the floor this time around.
Reform and Tories aligning themselves so closely to Trump on Ice and Iran will in time be when both lost the next GE
LD and Green will claim theyd never have touched him, had they been in power we'd have been hammered for Tariffs.
Labour hung on to his coattails long enough to get best tariffs on the planet. Starmer refusing to act with aggressive intent on Iran came at just the right time, help by blood thirsty Farage and Badenoch following Trump like poodles might be too late to save Starmer.
As policy positioning though it could give labour 5% Poll boost at least within 12 months, especially with any new Leader bounce.
Starmer could yet capitulate. Don't forget his political antennae are incredibly ineffective.
He could.
Collective responsibility and some very passionate voices even in No 11, Home Office, Foreign Office and Environment will ensure he won't wraken
Labour also have at least half a dozen new intake very recent Armed Forces MPs who have been very influential in lobbying against Trump.
Big energy curtailment day today. Current marginal elec price is negative: -16.67.
A day where if we’d managed to sort transmission, and electrified heating and transport more quickly, we’d be happily looking on at the Straits of Hormuz with a sense of detachment.
Storage is the big item here, I think.
When solar + storage drops a bit further - maybe 2-5 years - it will be the cheapest option. I'm talking 12 hours of storage, by the way.
And before the "using up farmland" nonsense starts a - a chap I know whose converting to solar farming doesn't even dig footings for the panel frames - they are held down with weights, just sitting on the ground. At first they used concrete blocks - now he uses rock gabions. Just a mesh cage attached to the frame leg. Put the frame in place, pour in rocks....
He runs sheep in and around the panels.
Even the power electronics are put in a small shed that's bolted to a concrete slab that's just placed on the ground.
I did the calculation and IRC land equivalent to 0.5% of current farmland would cover the entire electricity demand of the UK through solar - not that anyone would do that of course.
The supposedly "impressive" Coutinho is one of those tilting at that particular windmill, so to speak.
Interesting note re Farmers.
A number round Devon reducing Cattle, increasing lamb and pork as can sit along side solar farms
Apart from solar having a very marginal requirement on land that could be used for farming, I don't even understand why people object in principle. A field used to generate electricity is a highly productive field.
They're as ugly as hell. A total blot on the landscape.
Plus, they generate leccy during periods of low demand, and fail to generate during periods of high demand.
When I get elected*, I will be putting a stop to them at every opportunity.
*This is not going to happen.
The idea is low demand is still demand, so other forms could be turned down, such as gas. If the worse comes to the worse battery storage could be used. We do need to develop that more though.
We certainly need a heck of a lot of batteries in order to load shift intermittent renewables.
But when it comes to inter-seasonal shifting, you need a bulk storage vector such as Green Hydrogen. Produce it from surplus solar in the summer and use it in gas turbines or fuel cells on those winter days with no sun and no wind.
Bulk storage of hydrogen over the long term?
Pressurised doesn’t work (leakage) and cryo loses a non trivial percentage. Per day.
Batteries are cheaper and work.
Batteries don't work that well on seasonal timescales, certainly not economically.
The easiest way to store hydrogen might be to convert it into methane. We know how to store that. Britain would have to build a lot more methane storage, though. The other advantage is that, if you're generating methane from excess renewable electricity, then you don't need to replace everyone's gas boiler and cooker.
Turning captured CO2 into methane, burning the methane, and releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere is, however, a fecking stupid thing to do.
Instead of dicking about with electrolysis and methanation, just store the captured CO2 and burn natural gas. Same net carbon impact, at lower cost.
Big energy curtailment day today. Current marginal elec price is negative: -16.67.
A day where if we’d managed to sort transmission, and electrified heating and transport more quickly, we’d be happily looking on at the Straits of Hormuz with a sense of detachment.
Storage is the big item here, I think.
When solar + storage drops a bit further - maybe 2-5 years - it will be the cheapest option. I'm talking 12 hours of storage, by the way.
And before the "using up farmland" nonsense starts a - a chap I know whose converting to solar farming doesn't even dig footings for the panel frames - they are held down with weights, just sitting on the ground. At first they used concrete blocks - now he uses rock gabions. Just a mesh cage attached to the frame leg. Put the frame in place, pour in rocks....
He runs sheep in and around the panels.
Even the power electronics are put in a small shed that's bolted to a concrete slab that's just placed on the ground.
I did the calculation and IRC land equivalent to 0.5% of current farmland would cover the entire electricity demand of the UK through solar - not that anyone would do that of course.
The supposedly "impressive" Coutinho is one of those tilting at that particular windmill, so to speak.
Interesting note re Farmers.
A number round Devon reducing Cattle, increasing lamb and pork as can sit along side solar farms
Apart from solar having a very marginal requirement on land that could be used for farming, I don't even understand why people object in principle. A field used to generate electricity is a highly productive field.
They're as ugly as hell. A total blot on the landscape.
Plus, they generate leccy during periods of low demand, and fail to generate during periods of high demand.
When I get elected*, I will be putting a stop to them at every opportunity.
*This is not going to happen.
The idea is low demand is still demand, so other forms could be turned down, such as gas. If the worse comes to the worse battery storage could be used. We do need to develop that more though.
We certainly need a heck of a lot of batteries in order to load shift intermittent renewables.
But when it comes to inter-seasonal shifting, you need a bulk storage vector such as Green Hydrogen. Produce it from surplus solar in the summer and use it in gas turbines or fuel cells on those winter days with no sun and no wind.
Bulk storage of hydrogen over the long term?
Pressurised doesn’t work (leakage) and cryo loses a non trivial percentage. Per day.
Batteries are cheaper and work.
Salt caverns. Like we do with natural gas.
We'll also have a fair bit of high pressure line pack available if/when Project Union gets built.
I think we should just cut out the hydrogen bits of the hydrogen economy entirely, because they are stupid and don't work.
Instead we should use things like solar/wind/nuclear/coal/rubber bands/literally anything else. Because they are not stupid and do work.
Would it really be prohibitively expensive to go it alone? Britain is already spending the money to build the submarines. It's already spending the money to build the warheads.
We're only talking about the missiles and, let's be honest, rocket science isn't exactly brain surgery.
The Ukrainians are making pretty rapid progress building new ballistic missiles. We could probably give the contract to one of their defence companies and it might end up being cheaper than Trident.
Not prohibitively expensive, but definitely expensive. Submarine launched ICBMs are expensive rockets in the first place - you need to package a multistage rocket into a relatively small volume & they also need inertial & star sighting guidance systems because you can’t use GPS in the middle of a nuclear war.
Again, this is the organisation Farage and (by her own account) Badenoch wish to emulate.
ICE detain husband of Democratic congressional candidate—who is also a disabled U.S. Army veteran.
He is wheelchair bound—after suffering severe injury during training for deployment in Iraq.
Agents arrested him one interview and a ceremony away from becoming a U.S. citizen.
Zahid Chaudhry has been awarded multiple medals for his service: ▪︎Army Service Ribbon ▪︎Global War on Terrorism Service Medal ▪︎Armed Forces Reserve Medal ▪︎Reserve Achievement Medal ▪︎National Defense Service Medal ▪︎Recruitment Achievement Medal ▪︎Army Strength Management Award
After 124 days in detention a federal judge finally ruled he had been wrongfully detained.
This is ridiculous. He’s not cheating the system. He’s following it. He’s playing by the rules and lost four months of his life.
Personally I find it ridiculous that because both Badenoch and Farage have said quite rightly that if we are going to deport the numbers that everyone agrees that we should (or have I been imagining Labour supporters critiquing the Boriswave), we will need an ICE-style organisation, that this apparently translates to replicating ICE's every foible. This is 12-year old level debating.
If you don't want people to make comparisons with ICE, maybe don't call it a "British ICE"?
Big energy curtailment day today. Current marginal elec price is negative: -16.67.
A day where if we’d managed to sort transmission, and electrified heating and transport more quickly, we’d be happily looking on at the Straits of Hormuz with a sense of detachment.
Storage is the big item here, I think.
When solar + storage drops a bit further - maybe 2-5 years - it will be the cheapest option. I'm talking 12 hours of storage, by the way.
And before the "using up farmland" nonsense starts a - a chap I know whose converting to solar farming doesn't even dig footings for the panel frames - they are held down with weights, just sitting on the ground. At first they used concrete blocks - now he uses rock gabions. Just a mesh cage attached to the frame leg. Put the frame in place, pour in rocks....
He runs sheep in and around the panels.
Even the power electronics are put in a small shed that's bolted to a concrete slab that's just placed on the ground.
I did the calculation and IRC land equivalent to 0.5% of current farmland would cover the entire electricity demand of the UK through solar - not that anyone would do that of course.
The supposedly "impressive" Coutinho is one of those tilting at that particular windmill, so to speak.
Interesting note re Farmers.
A number round Devon reducing Cattle, increasing lamb and pork as can sit along side solar farms
Apart from solar having a very marginal requirement on land that could be used for farming, I don't even understand why people object in principle. A field used to generate electricity is a highly productive field.
They're as ugly as hell. A total blot on the landscape.
Plus, they generate leccy during periods of low demand, and fail to generate during periods of high demand.
When I get elected*, I will be putting a stop to them at every opportunity.
*This is not going to happen.
The idea is low demand is still demand, so other forms could be turned down, such as gas. If the worse comes to the worse battery storage could be used. We do need to develop that more though.
We certainly need a heck of a lot of batteries in order to load shift intermittent renewables.
But when it comes to inter-seasonal shifting, you need a bulk storage vector such as Green Hydrogen. Produce it from surplus solar in the summer and use it in gas turbines or fuel cells on those winter days with no sun and no wind.
Bulk storage of hydrogen over the long term?
Pressurised doesn’t work (leakage) and cryo loses a non trivial percentage. Per day.
Batteries are cheaper and work.
Batteries don't work that well on seasonal timescales, certainly not economically.
The easiest way to store hydrogen might be to convert it into methane. We know how to store that. Britain would have to build a lot more methane storage, though. The other advantage is that, if you're generating methane from excess renewable electricity, then you don't need to replace everyone's gas boiler and cooker.
Turning captured CO2 into methane, burning the methane, and releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere is, however, a fecking stupid thing to do.
Instead of dicking about with electrolysis and methanation, just store the captured CO2 and burn natural gas. Same net carbon impact, at lower cost.
The idea is that the excess renewable electricity is essentially free. Britain is chucking GWs away regularly because the grid can't move it to where it's needed, and the intermittent nature of renewables means you're only going to have more excess energy in the future as more renewables are built.
So the methane you produce could be very cheap, if you set up the energy market with the right incentives. And then, if you really want to, you can capture the CO2 and try and store it, and then you have a carbon negative process. Which is probably the only way you stop the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets from melting, and having to rebuild all global coastal infrastructure and rehouse several hundred million people.
That “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot” is the only England rugby union song is, I reckon, the greatest tribute to any pun nickname, ever
Do you all know the story behind it?
Other than Wales most Rugby songs are utterly naff.
It's one area where football wins hands down.
Sounds like a no from you..
The song was first sung at Twickenham during the 1987 Middlesex Sevens
A young winger called Martin Offiah scored several scintillating tries for Rosslyn Park. Their fans gave him the nickname Chariots (Chariots Offiah; geddit?)
So they sang the chariots song
(Offiah was so good that the Widnes scouts made sure he never played Union again)
The next year Chris Oti scored a hat trick for England, and the song was reprised
Now it’s the England Rugby song
It's a good story, but it's notable that English soccer fans at many clubs do that sort of thing for most of their players, while England rugby fans did it once, nearly 40 years ago.
We've got Mirandinha He's not from Argentina He's from Brazil He's fucking brill
Instead of fighting over a 21-mile-wide bottleneck forever, we cut a new channel through friendly territory. A dozen thermonuclear detonations and you’ve got a waterway wider than the Panama Canal, deeper than the Suez, and safe from Iranian attacks.
Instead of fighting over a 21-mile-wide bottleneck forever, we cut a new channel through friendly territory. A dozen thermonuclear detonations and you’ve got a waterway wider than the Panama Canal, deeper than the Suez, and safe from Iranian attacks.
Big energy curtailment day today. Current marginal elec price is negative: -16.67.
A day where if we’d managed to sort transmission, and electrified heating and transport more quickly, we’d be happily looking on at the Straits of Hormuz with a sense of detachment.
Storage is the big item here, I think.
When solar + storage drops a bit further - maybe 2-5 years - it will be the cheapest option. I'm talking 12 hours of storage, by the way.
And before the "using up farmland" nonsense starts a - a chap I know whose converting to solar farming doesn't even dig footings for the panel frames - they are held down with weights, just sitting on the ground. At first they used concrete blocks - now he uses rock gabions. Just a mesh cage attached to the frame leg. Put the frame in place, pour in rocks....
He runs sheep in and around the panels.
Even the power electronics are put in a small shed that's bolted to a concrete slab that's just placed on the ground.
I did the calculation and IRC land equivalent to 0.5% of current farmland would cover the entire electricity demand of the UK through solar - not that anyone would do that of course.
The supposedly "impressive" Coutinho is one of those tilting at that particular windmill, so to speak.
Interesting note re Farmers.
A number round Devon reducing Cattle, increasing lamb and pork as can sit along side solar farms
Apart from solar having a very marginal requirement on land that could be used for farming, I don't even understand why people object in principle. A field used to generate electricity is a highly productive field.
They're as ugly as hell. A total blot on the landscape.
Plus, they generate leccy during periods of low demand, and fail to generate during periods of high demand.
When I get elected*, I will be putting a stop to them at every opportunity.
*This is not going to happen.
The idea is low demand is still demand, so other forms could be turned down, such as gas. If the worse comes to the worse battery storage could be used. We do need to develop that more though.
We certainly need a heck of a lot of batteries in order to load shift intermittent renewables.
But when it comes to inter-seasonal shifting, you need a bulk storage vector such as Green Hydrogen. Produce it from surplus solar in the summer and use it in gas turbines or fuel cells on those winter days with no sun and no wind.
Bulk storage of hydrogen over the long term?
Pressurised doesn’t work (leakage) and cryo loses a non trivial percentage. Per day.
Batteries are cheaper and work.
Batteries don't work that well on seasonal timescales, certainly not economically.
The easiest way to store hydrogen might be to convert it into methane. We know how to store that. Britain would have to build a lot more methane storage, though. The other advantage is that, if you're generating methane from excess renewable electricity, then you don't need to replace everyone's gas boiler and cooker.
Turning captured CO2 into methane, burning the methane, and releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere is, however, a fecking stupid thing to do.
Instead of dicking about with electrolysis and methanation, just store the captured CO2 and burn natural gas. Same net carbon impact, at lower cost.
The idea is that the excess renewable electricity is essentially free. Britain is chucking GWs away regularly because the grid can't move it to where it's needed, and the intermittent nature of renewables means you're only going to have more excess energy in the future as more renewables are built.
So the methane you produce could be very cheap, if you set up the energy market with the right incentives. And then, if you really want to, you can capture the CO2 and try and store it, and then you have a carbon negative process. Which is probably the only way you stop the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets from melting, and having to rebuild all global coastal infrastructure and rehouse several hundred million people.
No, the hydrogen is produced at minimal marginal cost, but you still need to cover the capex and fixed opex of the electrolysis plant (and associated power grid supply, water supply and water treatment plant. Then if you want to turn it into methane, you need a source of (ideally biogenic) captured CO2 and a methanation plant. Again, you need to cover the capex and fixed opex of this.
If you are using methane for domestic heating, you can't capture the CO2. Hence the need to switch to hydrogen or the dreaded air source heat pumps in order to decarbonise our homes.
Instead of fighting over a 21-mile-wide bottleneck forever, we cut a new channel through friendly territory. A dozen thermonuclear detonations and you’ve got a waterway wider than the Panama Canal, deeper than the Suez, and safe from Iranian attacks.
Should be ready for use by the end of tomorrow!!
Get your Plowshares out. Load up the Chariot - we are going via Sedan.
Instead of fighting over a 21-mile-wide bottleneck forever, we cut a new channel through friendly territory. A dozen thermonuclear detonations and you’ve got a waterway wider than the Panama Canal, deeper than the Suez, and safe from Iranian attacks.
Should be ready for use by the end of tomorrow!!
Get your Plowshares out. Load up the Chariot - we are going via Sedan.
The US-Israeli combined force will need time to achieve its military objectives and prevent Iran from inflicting further political and economic pain upon the United States and its allies in the region, but the campaign remains incomplete, and it is too soon to forecast its outcome. Declaring it an operational failure is unquestionably premature.
Big energy curtailment day today. Current marginal elec price is negative: -16.67.
A day where if we’d managed to sort transmission, and electrified heating and transport more quickly, we’d be happily looking on at the Straits of Hormuz with a sense of detachment.
Storage is the big item here, I think.
When solar + storage drops a bit further - maybe 2-5 years - it will be the cheapest option. I'm talking 12 hours of storage, by the way.
And before the "using up farmland" nonsense starts a - a chap I know whose converting to solar farming doesn't even dig footings for the panel frames - they are held down with weights, just sitting on the ground. At first they used concrete blocks - now he uses rock gabions. Just a mesh cage attached to the frame leg. Put the frame in place, pour in rocks....
He runs sheep in and around the panels.
Even the power electronics are put in a small shed that's bolted to a concrete slab that's just placed on the ground.
I did the calculation and IRC land equivalent to 0.5% of current farmland would cover the entire electricity demand of the UK through solar - not that anyone would do that of course.
The supposedly "impressive" Coutinho is one of those tilting at that particular windmill, so to speak.
Interesting note re Farmers.
A number round Devon reducing Cattle, increasing lamb and pork as can sit along side solar farms
Apart from solar having a very marginal requirement on land that could be used for farming, I don't even understand why people object in principle. A field used to generate electricity is a highly productive field.
They're as ugly as hell. A total blot on the landscape.
Plus, they generate leccy during periods of low demand, and fail to generate during periods of high demand.
When I get elected*, I will be putting a stop to them at every opportunity.
*This is not going to happen.
The idea is low demand is still demand, so other forms could be turned down, such as gas. If the worse comes to the worse battery storage could be used. We do need to develop that more though.
We certainly need a heck of a lot of batteries in order to load shift intermittent renewables.
But when it comes to inter-seasonal shifting, you need a bulk storage vector such as Green Hydrogen. Produce it from surplus solar in the summer and use it in gas turbines or fuel cells on those winter days with no sun and no wind.
Bulk storage of hydrogen over the long term?
Pressurised doesn’t work (leakage) and cryo loses a non trivial percentage. Per day.
Batteries are cheaper and work.
Batteries don't work that well on seasonal timescales, certainly not economically.
The easiest way to store hydrogen might be to convert it into methane. We know how to store that. Britain would have to build a lot more methane storage, though. The other advantage is that, if you're generating methane from excess renewable electricity, then you don't need to replace everyone's gas boiler and cooker.
Turning captured CO2 into methane, burning the methane, and releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere is, however, a fecking stupid thing to do.
Instead of dicking about with electrolysis and methanation, just store the captured CO2 and burn natural gas. Same net carbon impact, at lower cost.
The idea is that the excess renewable electricity is essentially free. Britain is chucking GWs away regularly because the grid can't move it to where it's needed, and the intermittent nature of renewables means you're only going to have more excess energy in the future as more renewables are built.
So the methane you produce could be very cheap, if you set up the energy market with the right incentives. And then, if you really want to, you can capture the CO2 and try and store it, and then you have a carbon negative process. Which is probably the only way you stop the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets from melting, and having to rebuild all global coastal infrastructure and rehouse several hundred million people.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
Are you actually f*ing serious?
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
Jesus wept.
I don't suggest dependency. I suggest a combined effort with costs shared.
How do you combine the effort and share costs without creating dependencies?
And why would France agree to that, when they already have their own independent system?
Either we want an independent system, or we don't. If we do, we should develop it, independently. We have the technology, the materials, all we lack is the manufacturing so get on with it and move on.
Because their own system is due replacement.
Collaboration without dependency on either side isn't impossible (though this is the French we're talking about).
There's certainly a large overlap in interests when it comes to deterrence, and it would be entirely possible (as an example) to coordinate on times at sea.
No need to share operational details beyond that, but it might considerably reduce the cost of maintaining a continuous at sea deterrent for both countries. Should we fall out, we simply cease that coordination.
Similar considerations might apply to tech and other cost sharing.
There is no way that France would fire a nuclear weapon, thus putting its own country in-line for obliteration, in response to a nuclear attack on the UK. And there is no way that the UK would do the same for France. It wouldn't be right for either country to be asked to do that for the other, nor would it be credible to an enemy that we would.
You're missing the point. No one need know whose submarines were at sea.
Instead of fighting over a 21-mile-wide bottleneck forever, we cut a new channel through friendly territory. A dozen thermonuclear detonations and you’ve got a waterway wider than the Panama Canal, deeper than the Suez, and safe from Iranian attacks.
Should be ready for use by the end of tomorrow!!
The Soviets and Americans did programs on civilian uses of nuclear power/bombs. They considered making harbours with them.
Big energy curtailment day today. Current marginal elec price is negative: -16.67.
A day where if we’d managed to sort transmission, and electrified heating and transport more quickly, we’d be happily looking on at the Straits of Hormuz with a sense of detachment.
Storage is the big item here, I think.
When solar + storage drops a bit further - maybe 2-5 years - it will be the cheapest option. I'm talking 12 hours of storage, by the way.
And before the "using up farmland" nonsense starts a - a chap I know whose converting to solar farming doesn't even dig footings for the panel frames - they are held down with weights, just sitting on the ground. At first they used concrete blocks - now he uses rock gabions. Just a mesh cage attached to the frame leg. Put the frame in place, pour in rocks....
He runs sheep in and around the panels.
Even the power electronics are put in a small shed that's bolted to a concrete slab that's just placed on the ground.
I did the calculation and IRC land equivalent to 0.5% of current farmland would cover the entire electricity demand of the UK through solar - not that anyone would do that of course.
The supposedly "impressive" Coutinho is one of those tilting at that particular windmill, so to speak.
Interesting note re Farmers.
A number round Devon reducing Cattle, increasing lamb and pork as can sit along side solar farms
Apart from solar having a very marginal requirement on land that could be used for farming, I don't even understand why people object in principle. A field used to generate electricity is a highly productive field.
They're as ugly as hell. A total blot on the landscape.
Plus, they generate leccy during periods of low demand, and fail to generate during periods of high demand.
When I get elected*, I will be putting a stop to them at every opportunity.
*This is not going to happen.
The idea is low demand is still demand, so other forms could be turned down, such as gas. If the worse comes to the worse battery storage could be used. We do need to develop that more though.
We certainly need a heck of a lot of batteries in order to load shift intermittent renewables.
But when it comes to inter-seasonal shifting, you need a bulk storage vector such as Green Hydrogen. Produce it from surplus solar in the summer and use it in gas turbines or fuel cells on those winter days with no sun and no wind.
Bulk storage of hydrogen over the long term?
Pressurised doesn’t work (leakage) and cryo loses a non trivial percentage. Per day.
Batteries are cheaper and work.
Batteries don't work that well on seasonal timescales, certainly not economically.
The easiest way to store hydrogen might be to convert it into methane. We know how to store that. Britain would have to build a lot more methane storage, though. The other advantage is that, if you're generating methane from excess renewable electricity, then you don't need to replace everyone's gas boiler and cooker.
Turning captured CO2 into methane, burning the methane, and releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere is, however, a fecking stupid thing to do.
Instead of dicking about with electrolysis and methanation, just store the captured CO2 and burn natural gas. Same net carbon impact, at lower cost.
The idea is that the excess renewable electricity is essentially free. Britain is chucking GWs away regularly because the grid can't move it to where it's needed, and the intermittent nature of renewables means you're only going to have more excess energy in the future as more renewables are built.
So the methane you produce could be very cheap, if you set up the energy market with the right incentives. And then, if you really want to, you can capture the CO2 and try and store it, and then you have a carbon negative process. Which is probably the only way you stop the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets from melting, and having to rebuild all global coastal infrastructure and rehouse several hundred million people.
No, the hydrogen is produced at minimal marginal cost, but you still need to cover the capex and fixed opex of the electrolysis plant (and associated power grid supply, water supply and water treatment plant. Then if you want to turn it into methane, you need a source of (ideally biogenic) captured CO2 and a methanation plant. Again, you need to cover the capex and fixed opex of this.
If you are using methane for domestic heating, you can't capture the CO2. Hence the need to switch to hydrogen or the dreaded air source heat pumps in order to decarbonise our homes.
My understanding is that making the gas network fully hydrogen is not economically viable, roadworks needed every few hundred metres. So electrification of heating is the solution .
Instead of fighting over a 21-mile-wide bottleneck forever, we cut a new channel through friendly territory. A dozen thermonuclear detonations and you’ve got a waterway wider than the Panama Canal, deeper than the Suez, and safe from Iranian attacks.
That's a good idea. Apart from the nuclear contamination, but that goes away...eventually.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
Are you actually f*ing serious?
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
Jesus wept.
I don't suggest dependency. I suggest a combined effort with costs shared.
How do you combine the effort and share costs without creating dependencies?
And why would France agree to that, when they already have their own independent system?
Either we want an independent system, or we don't. If we do, we should develop it, independently. We have the technology, the materials, all we lack is the manufacturing so get on with it and move on.
Because their own system is due replacement.
Collaboration without dependency on either side isn't impossible (though this is the French we're talking about).
There's certainly a large overlap in interests when it comes to deterrence, and it would be entirely possible (as an example) to coordinate on times at sea.
No need to share operational details beyond that, but it might considerably reduce the cost of maintaining a continuous at sea deterrent for both countries. Should we fall out, we simply cease that coordination.
Similar considerations might apply to tech and other cost sharing.
There is no way that France would fire a nuclear weapon, thus putting its own country in-line for obliteration, in response to a nuclear attack on the UK. And there is no way that the UK would do the same for France. It wouldn't be right for either country to be asked to do that for the other, nor would it be credible to an enemy that we would.
You're missing the point. No one need know whose submarines were at sea.
Would it really be prohibitively expensive to go it alone? Britain is already spending the money to build the submarines. It's already spending the money to build the warheads.
We're only talking about the missiles and, let's be honest, rocket science isn't exactly brain surgery.
The Ukrainians are making pretty rapid progress building new ballistic missiles. We could probably give the contract to one of their defence companies and it might end up being cheaper than Trident.
'Cheaper than Trident' doesn't sound like good value for the arms industry taxpayer? And above all - good value for the arms industry taxpayer and defence of the arms industry realm is the important thing. Surely?
Comments
Collective responsibility and some very passionate voices even in No 11, Home Office, Foreign Office and Environment will ensure he won't wraken
Labour also have at least half a dozen new intake very recent Armed Forces MPs who have been very influential in lobbying against Trump.
So, according to the polls, Thomas Massie's odds of winning the Kentucky primary were holding steady at 53%.
Then Trump flew in to the Bluegrass State and campaigned for his opponent Ed Gallrein.
@RepThomasMassie now stands at 75%.
https://x.com/ImBreckWorsham/status/2032815602054697155
They asked the barman for two whiskies
Are you sure, said the barman.
We’re positive was the reply………
Joke would have worked better with protons, which carry positive charge.
https://x.com/genuinelexluger/status/2033240526774849793?s=61
He quits 2028/2029, new leader gets a bounce and Labour probably runs a minority government.
So, a shared missile or deterrent system with France is probably the most likely next choice if we detach from the USA.
Plus, they generate leccy during periods of low demand, and fail to generate during periods of high demand.
When I get elected*, I will be putting a stop to them at every opportunity.
*This is not going to happen.
I was simply predicting the most likely next alternative we'd go for, if we detached from the US on it.
Additionally, if you don't have them in the air continuously then any time you put them up is immediately an escalatory step. You risk encouraging people to attack you before you can do so.
The only place for panels is on top of man made structures. Not on England's green and pleasant land.
It's one of the reasons the west negotiated away the shorter range nukes (like Pershing), back in the day.
He'll be counting how many times people post them next
1) The defections of those nice cuddly Tories Jenrick and Braverman.
2) Trump being an absolute [redacted] about the UK military dead.
3) Reform councils being useless and doing the exact opposite of what they promised
It has real cut through.
Could be better; but could be a lot worse.
Britain is the most expensive country in the world to build a nuclear power plant.
The Fingleton Review challenged the Government to deliver a radical programme of planning and regulatory reform to make it cheaper and quicker to build nuclear power plants.
The Government have now published a full response and implementation plan.
Did they deliver 'full implementation' or is it another Labour U-Turn?
Here's
@BritainRemade
's analysis.
This is a really big step forward.
On safety and reactor design, this is the radical reset of nuclear regulation the review demanded.
On planning, this is the most radical infrastructure reform agenda the govt has put forward yet.
However, it is not 'full' implementation.
Some key measures have been watered down. For example, Habs Regs reforms have become 'updated guidance' and lack statutory underpinning.
Some have been rejected such as the call for statutory time limits for permits and the call to make community benefits a material consideration in planning.
Overall, it's really good news for nuclear (and therefore energy security). This could end up as Starmer's best legacy as PM.
More detail in the blog below...
https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/2032779113816072348
https://x.com/fmrrepmtg/status/2033204528095297746
If you’re noticing Tucker Carlson being attacked from literally every direction of the political machine.
It’s because they are terrified of him running for president.
Because he would win and they know it.
And that’s why I’m deeply concerned for my friend Tucker Carlson and his family.
These people are vicious and evil and will attempt to destroy anyone and everyone that reveals the truth.
But when it comes to inter-seasonal shifting, you need a bulk storage vector such as Green Hydrogen. Produce it from surplus solar in the summer and use it in gas turbines or fuel cells on those winter days with no sun and no wind.
Do you all know the story behind it?
He's not best pleased, so the Joker asks him:
"Why so Sirius?"
If I were a Gulf state - despite a hatred for Iran that knows no depths. - I would be on the phone to Tehran, and ask them, please open Hormuz and stop bombing us . Name your price. Fuck the Americans, why should we see our country ruined?
* There is a hypothetical option of a Gallipoli style campaign against the Iranians. No-one in their right mind s would do it, precisely because it would be Gallipoli style.
We're only talking about the missiles and, let's be honest, rocket science isn't exactly brain surgery.
The Ukrainians are making pretty rapid progress building new ballistic missiles. We could probably give the contract to one of their defence companies and it might end up being cheaper than Trident.
It's one area where football wins hands down.
"Director of the National Economic Council of the United States Kevin Hassett, who said this conflict could last four to six weeks.
That repeats claims we’ve heard from President Trump in recent days, when he said the United States is ahead of schedule in this operation. We have also heard similar remarks from Energy Secretary Chris Wright.
But these statements come as Iran’s foreign minister says the country is willing and able to fight for as long as it takes.
Here in Washington, many analysts and experts interpret that as Iran preparing for a war of attrition – a strategy of endurance designed to drag this conflict out politically and economically.
If the White House cannot maintain its narrative of a short war, it’s plausible that Washington could be forced to return to the negotiating table and maybe even be seeking out a diplomatic off-ramp."
Pressurised doesn’t work (leakage) and cryo loses a non trivial percentage. Per day.
Batteries are cheaper and work.
The song was first sung at Twickenham during the 1987 Middlesex Sevens
A young winger called Martin Offiah scored several scintillating tries for Rosslyn Park. Their fans gave him the nickname Chariots (Chariots Offiah; geddit?)
So they sang the chariots song
(Offiah was so good that the Widnes scouts made sure he never played Union again)
The next year Chris Oti scored a hat trick for England, and the song was reprised
Now it’s the England Rugby song
The easiest way to store hydrogen might be to convert it into methane. We know how to store that. Britain would have to build a lot more methane storage, though. The other advantage is that, if you're generating methane from excess renewable electricity, then you don't need to replace everyone's gas boiler and cooker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SELRtaciaI
It's like people rejecting roadside poles for 5G because they're "visually intrusive". It's irrelevant.
Those drones that hit* the oil storage tanks at Fujairah would have had a greater impact** if they'd hit F1, F2 or F3 just up the coast.
BTW, you can escape the intense, dry heat of Dubai or Abu Dhabi by going to Fujairah. And suffer the stifling humid heat instead.
*Sorry, I should have said "Those intercepted drones, debris from which hit..."
**Pun intended.
We'll also have a fair bit of high pressure line pack available if/when Project Union gets built.
2 shot lead possibly down to 1 with 7 holes remaining
I am on Cameron Young E/W (1/3rd 1,2) at 10/1 overnight
My other EW bet already a loser
Instead of dicking about with electrolysis and methanation, just store the captured CO2 and burn natural gas. Same net carbon impact, at lower cost.
Instead we should use things like solar/wind/nuclear/coal/rubber bands/literally anything else. Because they are not stupid and do work.
People's quality of life is relevant. Protecting the countryside is relevant. Having food security is relevant.
Although he supports the wrong football team!!
So the methane you produce could be very cheap, if you set up the energy market with the right incentives. And then, if you really want to, you can capture the CO2 and try and store it, and then you have a carbon negative process. Which is probably the only way you stop the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets from melting, and having to rebuild all global coastal infrastructure and rehouse several hundred million people.
He's not from Argentina
He's from Brazil
He's fucking brill
Philippe, Philippe Albert
Everyone knows his name
Na na na na, na na na na
Hey, hey
Zico Martin
https://x.com/newtgingrich/status/2033249021133811775
Instead of fighting over a 21-mile-wide bottleneck forever, we cut a new channel through friendly territory. A dozen thermonuclear detonations and you’ve got a waterway wider than the Panama Canal, deeper than the Suez, and safe from Iranian attacks.
Fitzpatrick and Young go 1st & 2nd
If you are using methane for domestic heating, you can't capture the CO2. Hence the need to switch to hydrogen or the dreaded air source heat pumps in order to decarbonise our homes.
No Sedan movements or might blow up
Institute for the Study of War
@TheStudyofWar
The US-Israeli combined force will need time to achieve its military objectives and prevent Iran from inflicting further political and economic pain upon the United States and its allies in the region, but the campaign remains incomplete, and it is too soon to forecast its outcome. Declaring it an operational failure is unquestionably premature.
https://x.com/TheStudyofWar/status/2033260698352976216
part of a longer tweet
Oh.
No one need know whose submarines were at sea.
https://www.google.com/search?q=use+of+nuclear+bombs+to+make+harbours