Just an aside to add to the comments earlier regarding Badenoch.
I hadn't seen the pictures of her on the oil rig earlier in the week., Having now seen it I am rather amused.
The rig in question - The Well-Safe Protector - is no longer a drilling rig. It is one of three rigs owned by Well-Safe and converted specifically to do well abandonments.
Shame her advisors didn't do their research.
To be fair - 99.9% of people looking at the pictures wouldnt know the difference between a survey rig and a production platform.
Very true but it does leave her open to some ridicule if and when someone points it out.
Didn’t the Wellsafe Chairman donate £250,000 to the Tory party ?
So no conflict of interest there ……
It has been pointed out by a number of tabloids
I make the point it was in dry dick, was called a liar. The fact it's what it is makes it even. More of a Kemi faux pa's.
A Tory donor visit to Aberdeen
A Tory donir visit the next day to fill in a pot hole in a new JCB
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
That's an important moment. By Trump and Hegseth's and the current USA's declared ethical values, Might is Right, and the Geneva Conventiona by implication have no meaning.
For the sake of the us servicemen let us hope that Iranians don't take that view. And an alive hostage is going to be worth a hell of a lot in the eventual diplomatic stuff.
Just an aside to add to the comments earlier regarding Badenoch.
I hadn't seen the pictures of her on the oil rig earlier in the week., Having now seen it I am rather amused.
The rig in question - The Well-Safe Protector - is no longer a drilling rig. It is one of three rigs owned by Well-Safe and converted specifically to do well abandonments.
Just an aside to add to the comments earlier regarding Badenoch.
I hadn't seen the pictures of her on the oil rig earlier in the week., Having now seen it I am rather amused.
The rig in question - The Well-Safe Protector - is no longer a drilling rig. It is one of three rigs owned by Well-Safe and converted specifically to do well abandonments.
Just an aside to add to the comments earlier regarding Badenoch.
I hadn't seen the pictures of her on the oil rig earlier in the week., Having now seen it I am rather amused.
The rig in question - The Well-Safe Protector - is no longer a drilling rig. It is one of three rigs owned by Well-Safe and converted specifically to do well abandonments.
Shame her advisors didn't do their research.
To be fair - 99.9% of people looking at the pictures wouldnt know the difference between a survey rig and a production platform.
Very true but it does leave her open to some ridicule if and when someone points it out.
Didn’t the Wellsafe Chairman donate £250,000 to the Tory party ?
So no conflict of interest there ……
It has been pointed out by a number of tabloids
I make the point it was in dry dick, was called a liar. The fact it's what it is makes it even. More of a Kemi faux pa's.
A Tory donor visit to Aberdeen
A Tory donir visit the next day to fill in a pot hole in a new JCB
Political prostitution
The one thing the Tories are world class at.
Long may Kemi keep winding you up alongside her fellow female mps
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
I really hope the Iranians make a song and dance about the Geneva Convention etc etc. Deeply cynical given their record but that’s the best outcome for the pilots, Iran and the rest of the world.
Are you kidding? They are fucked with a capital فـ
Just an aside to add to the comments earlier regarding Badenoch.
I hadn't seen the pictures of her on the oil rig earlier in the week., Having now seen it I am rather amused.
The rig in question - The Well-Safe Protector - is no longer a drilling rig. It is one of three rigs owned by Well-Safe and converted specifically to do well abandonments.
Just an aside to add to the comments earlier regarding Badenoch.
I hadn't seen the pictures of her on the oil rig earlier in the week., Having now seen it I am rather amused.
The rig in question - The Well-Safe Protector - is no longer a drilling rig. It is one of three rigs owned by Well-Safe and converted specifically to do well abandonments.
Shame her advisors didn't do their research.
Small tremor between Colwyn Bay and Conway..
Conwy
Llandudno but no tremor
And yes @Brixian59 cannot spell properly including Conwy
Just an aside to add to the comments earlier regarding Badenoch.
I hadn't seen the pictures of her on the oil rig earlier in the week., Having now seen it I am rather amused.
The rig in question - The Well-Safe Protector - is no longer a drilling rig. It is one of three rigs owned by Well-Safe and converted specifically to do well abandonments.
Shame her advisors didn't do their research.
To be fair - 99.9% of people looking at the pictures wouldnt know the difference between a survey rig and a production platform.
Very true but it does leave her open to some ridicule if and when someone points it out.
Didn’t the Wellsafe Chairman donate £250,000 to the Tory party ?
So no conflict of interest there ……
It has been pointed out by a number of tabloids
I make the point it was in dry dick, was called a liar. The fact it's what it is makes it even. More of a Kemi faux pa's.
A Tory donor visit to Aberdeen
A Tory donir visit the next day to fill in a pot hole in a new JCB
A French general just looked at Trump’s plan to build a runway inside Iran to fly out uranium under active bombing. His response: “American officials should stop snorting cocaine between meetings.”
I’m struck by a poignant juxta this GF morning. Artemis breaks the Earth’s orbit and heads for the dark side of the moon. Intention: the furthering of human knowledge. Bombs rain down in the Middle East. Intention: destroying people and things. A noble uplifting deployment of our technological prowess right alongside its very opposite. You look at the first and you wonder at how far we have come. You look at the second, soundtracked by the bloodthirsty inanities of Trump and Hegseth, and you realize we’ve hardly evolved at all. Take your choice. A suitable muse for Easter, I think.
The Apollo moon program occurred alongside wars in Vietnam and the Middle East and a near nuclear exchange between China and the Soviet Union.
Indeed. I bet even in the earliest times you'd find men sharpening stones to cut meat and feed the multitude whilst others used theirs to bash people on the head. It's a hardy perennial.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of @Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy: "Russian losses this March have reached their highest level since the start of the war: our drone strikes alone resulted in 33,988 Russian servicemembers killed or seriously wounded, while artillery and other strikes eliminated another 1,363 Russian occupiers."
Volodymyr Zelenskyy: "Russian losses this March have reached their highest level since the start of the war: our drone strikes alone resulted in 33,988 Russian servicemembers killed or seriously wounded, while artillery and other strikes eliminated another 1,363 Russian occupiers."
I remember being told here a couple of years ago that it was an artillery war and that drones were a sideshow.
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
I really hope the Iranians make a song and dance about the Geneva Convention etc etc. Deeply cynical given their record but that’s the best outcome for the pilots, Iran and the rest of the world.
Are you kidding? They are fucked with a capital فـ
If we get a crane in the middle of Tehran scenario then... BRACE
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
I really hope the Iranians make a song and dance about the Geneva Convention etc etc. Deeply cynical given their record but that’s the best outcome for the pilots, Iran and the rest of the world.
That it would show up the Israelis and Americans as malignant, violent thugs is a nice bonus.
Regardless of your feelings on the war and the US and Israel, it’s ridiculous to pretend the Iranian ruling regime aren’t violent thugs too.
As an agnostic, I'm deeply offended* by this blatant display of Christianity in the middle of London. How dare they express domination over me like that?
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
As an agnostic, I'm deeply offended* by this blatant display of Christianity in the middle of London. How dare they express domination over me like that?
A French general just looked at Trump’s plan to build a runway inside Iran to fly out uranium under active bombing. His response: “American officials should stop snorting cocaine between meetings.”
The USA has a history of unfeasibly convoluted plans against Iran:
The plan was designed so all four main services of the Department of Defense would have a part: Army, Navy, Air Force and the Marine Corps. It was planned that helicopters and C-130 aircraft, following different routes, would rendezvous on a salt flat (code-named Desert One) 200 miles (320 km) southeast of Tehran. Here the helicopters would refuel from the C-130s and pick up the combat troops who had flown in on the C-130 transports. The helicopters would then transport the troops to a mountain location (Desert Two) closer to Tehran, from which the rescue raid would be launched into the city the following night. The operation was further to be supported by an in-country CIA team. On completion of the raid, hostages were to be taken to a captured Tehran airport from where they were to be flown to Egypt.
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
I really hope the Iranians make a song and dance about the Geneva Convention etc etc. Deeply cynical given their record but that’s the best outcome for the pilots, Iran and the rest of the world.
That it would show up the Israelis and Americans as malignant, violent thugs is a nice bonus.
Regardless of your feelings on the war and the US and Israel, it’s ridiculous to pretend the Iranian ruling regime aren’t violent thugs too.
As an agnostic, I'm deeply offended* by this blatant display of Christianity in the middle of London. How dare they express domination over me like that?
It is amazing how this annual celebration of chocolate shaped into eggs and flavoured hot cross buns has been taken over by weird religious ideas. Modern life, eh?
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
I really hope the Iranians make a song and dance about the Geneva Convention etc etc. Deeply cynical given their record but that’s the best outcome for the pilots, Iran and the rest of the world.
Are you kidding? They are fucked with a capital فـ
If we get a crane in the middle of Tehran scenario then... BRACE
The very least they can expect is an exceptionally thorough pasting from whatever militia/IRGC unit scoops them up.
Kill a local taxi driver, take his car and then full send to the Iraqi border would be my plan.
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
I really hope the Iranians make a song and dance about the Geneva Convention etc etc. Deeply cynical given their record but that’s the best outcome for the pilots, Iran and the rest of the world.
That it would show up the Israelis and Americans as malignant, violent thugs is a nice bonus.
Regardless of your feelings on the war and the US and Israel, it’s ridiculous to pretend the Iranian ruling regime aren’t violent thugs too.
As an agnostic, I'm deeply offended* by this blatant display of Christianity in the middle of London. How dare they express domination over me like that?
A French general just looked at Trump’s plan to build a runway inside Iran to fly out uranium under active bombing. His response: “American officials should stop snorting cocaine between meetings.”
The USA has a history of unfeasibly convoluted plans against Iran:
The plan was designed so all four main services of the Department of Defense would have a part: Army, Navy, Air Force and the Marine Corps. It was planned that helicopters and C-130 aircraft, following different routes, would rendezvous on a salt flat (code-named Desert One) 200 miles (320 km) southeast of Tehran. Here the helicopters would refuel from the C-130s and pick up the combat troops who had flown in on the C-130 transports. The helicopters would then transport the troops to a mountain location (Desert Two) closer to Tehran, from which the rescue raid would be launched into the city the following night. The operation was further to be supported by an in-country CIA team. On completion of the raid, hostages were to be taken to a captured Tehran airport from where they were to be flown to Egypt.
As an agnostic, I'm deeply offended* by this blatant display of Christianity in the middle of London. How dare they express domination over me like that?
As an agnostic, I'm deeply offended* by this blatant display of Christianity in the middle of London. How dare they express domination over me like that?
It is amazing how this annual celebration of chocolate shaped into eggs and flavoured hot cross buns has been taken over by weird religious ideas. Modern life, eh?
I mean it's objectively just reverted back to being a national spring festival that also has religious meaning for a Christian minority.
As an agnostic, I'm deeply offended* by this blatant display of Christianity in the middle of London. How dare they express domination over me like that?
As an agnostic, I'm deeply offended* by this blatant display of Christianity in the middle of London. How dare they express domination over me like that?
It is amazing how this annual celebration of chocolate shaped into eggs and flavoured hot cross buns has been taken over by weird religious ideas. Modern life, eh?
I mean it's objectively just reverted back to being a national spring festival that also has religious meaning for a Christian minority.
The first day of the County Championship, you mean?
One question I would like answered on North Sea oil. Would any public subsidy be involved?
No.
They do get tax relief for various activities, which a lot of people describe as subsidy, even if it's really not.
If a particular sector gets preferential tax treatment it absolutely is a subsidy. I appreciate the general public thinks of direct grants only, but there are loads of ways government can support a sector other than just cash transfers.
If a particular sector is generating considerable net tax revenue, then for me at least it seems inaccurate to call it subsidised.
Some of its activities (exploration at one end, and remediation at the other) are subsidised by the tax relief. For public benefit.
Preferential tax relief counts as a subsidy under WTO definitions.
That is a red herring; they also get taxed at far higher rates than other sectors.
As long as Hormuz stays closed, yes. The expectation at least prior to this was North Sea revenues would essentially disappear over the next five years. There's no reason for believing authorising new licences will materially add to revenue in the medium term.
We seem to have gone from a £25 billion bonanza and fuel bills in pennies to will it need subsidy in a few dozen comments but such are the byways of PB.com.
Anyhow the discussion at that moment was well as my observation were about definitions. Preferential tax treatment is a subsidy as far as WTO is concerned. A subsidy doesn't require you to hand over cash
The oil price isn't dependent on cost of production; it's a global market determined by supply and demand. Subsidies/tax breaks shouldn't bother the WTO in the slightest here.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Even if we used no oil and gas for 'energy', we'd still need oil for plastics and pharmaceiticals, and (this is the big one) natural gas for nitrogen fertilizer.
As an agnostic, I'm deeply offended* by this blatant display of Christianity in the middle of London. How dare they express domination over me like that?
It is amazing how this annual celebration of chocolate shaped into eggs and flavoured hot cross buns has been taken over by weird religious ideas. Modern life, eh?
I mean it's objectively just reverted back to being a national spring festival that also has religious meaning for a Christian minority.
The first day of the County Championship, you mean?
[Looks outside]
What were they thinking?
May I ask for your evidence for this extraordinary and outrageous claim that the organisation responsible for the Hundred is capable of thinking?
As an agnostic, I'm deeply offended* by this blatant display of Christianity in the middle of London. How dare they express domination over me like that?
Breaking headline: "Trump says JD Vance is responsible for fraud in the US"
I thought, wow that's a schism in the regime.
But on investigation no, it's a big new job for the VP. He's now the Fraud Czar tasked with rooting out the misuse of taxpayer dollars by state officials outside Washington.
As a matter of time management, and in order to get the most bang for the buck, he'll start by looking exclusively at fraud in Democrat run states.
You'll like this one. Trump looking for JD Vance in the audience:
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
It we will keep on burning Saudi oil and Norwegian and Qatari gas. As long as we have the demand, we should be fulfilling as much of it as possible from UK sources.
And we are locking in demand for natural gas until 2050, thanks to the CCGT and Blue Hydrogen plants that DESNZ is supporting.
I'm a broken record on this issue, but all it needs is EdM to see sense and I'll be able to shut up about it.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Sadly they may be bright but they show an acute lack of common sense and logic. As I have said before using imported hydrocarbons instead of our own not only doesn't reduce carbon emmissions, it actually increases them. When we import LNG from the US, 1% of the total volume is lost on the journey over here due to evaporation. Same goes for importing LNG from anywhere else in the world.
We spend £2 billion a year in tariffs and transport costs over and above the actual cost of the product to import gas from Norway and the US. We also import oil from places with far lower environmental standards than the UK.
Put simply, your academicss are supporting more pollution., not less and are expecting the UK to pay for it as well.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Many people are sufficiently distanced from the means of production (whether agriculture, energy or manufacturing) that they neither know nor care what the requirements of production are.
As an agnostic, I'm deeply offended* by this blatant display of Christianity in the middle of London. How dare they express domination over me like that?
As an agnostic, I'm deeply offended* by this blatant display of Christianity in the middle of London. How dare they express domination over me like that?
It is amazing how this annual celebration of chocolate shaped into eggs and flavoured hot cross buns has been taken over by weird religious ideas. Modern life, eh?
Good Friday is a day for Christians to reflect on the crucifixion. Easter Sunday is the day the secular can celebrate Easter eggs and bunnies and hot cross buns with Christians for whom it is also a day of celebration of the resurrection as well as the start of Spring
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
I really hope the Iranians make a song and dance about the Geneva Convention etc etc. Deeply cynical given their record but that’s the best outcome for the pilots, Iran and the rest of the world.
That it would show up the Israelis and Americans as malignant, violent thugs is a nice bonus.
Regardless of your feelings on the war and the US and Israel, it’s ridiculous to pretend the Iranian ruling regime aren’t violent thugs too.
They haven't stopped the execution of protestors. No one should be cheering either side, each of whom doesn't give a fuck about their civilians.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Even if we used no oil and gas for 'energy', we'd still need oil for plastics and pharmaceiticals, and (this is the big one) natural gas for nitrogen fertilizer.
Quite an interesting piece from Lord Frost in the Telegraph.
He's become a Roman Catholic, in a process which I think would bear comparison with Tony Blair's motivations. In the sense of Cardinal JH Newman, he is looking for something more comprehensive and 'fully orbed' than he has known before. Brits, especially High or liberal catholic Anglicans, can feel an attraction to the RC world which is almost magnetic in its feel.
Britain is quietly awakening to full-fat supernatural Christianity I have turned to Rome and I am not alone in wanting to be part of an ethereal reality sustained by a creator God
(Personally I think he is a little confused in some of the background he puts forward, and reacting more to his own perceptions eg about "woke", and not that well informed - but it is worth a read nonetheless. As is his habit he is on there replying to commenters at 10am ie now.)
I've said if I were a Christian, I would choose to be a Catholic as confession would be perfect for me. Once a week I get the opportunity to brag about my sins, then all I have to do is say 100 Hail Marys and I'm forgiven.
Russian Orthodoxy for me. I love the ancient icons and smoky mysticism and the singing can be epic. That said, I love English churches and cathedrals and the Anglican choral tradition is unexampled so ideally the two churches would fuse, just for me. Not much to ask
I am getting more religious as I age. And it’s not just the greater proximity of death. It becomes evermore obvious, to me, that the universe is shaped with a purpose. Fuck knows what it is, but ineffability is part of the deal
Yesterday I had a call from an old friend. He and his wife have joined a church (quite unexpectedly). I wonder if there is a subtle return to faith out there, even tho the data is disputed
Happy Easter, PB
Have you done your London Churches rabbit holes? Given you, I'm assuming you would visit one sometimes.
St Dunstan-in-the-West on Fleet Street is a City Church with a real (Romanian Orthodox) iconostasis inside (they share the building), from St Antim Monastery in Bucharest, installed in 1966. They also have the oldest public clock in London from 1671, with Gog and Magog striking the hours, and the oldest outdoor public statue of Queen Elizabeth I.
If I recommended a visit to one other City Church, it would be the Roman Catholic one of St Mary Moorfields (1791), which is almost camouflaged in a row of buildings on Eldon Street near Finsbury Circus, and is such a surprise to see the inside. https://maps.app.goo.gl/vrDMzvgm42krcGnCA
Yes - happy Easter to all PB.
Yes I love London churches. I know the first of the ones you mention but not the second. Will check, ta
Hawksmoor is possibly my favourite. My heart leaps every time I see Christ Church Spitalfields, the concentrated power.
For pure noom, however, St Bartholomew the Great is great. And personally St Sepulchre-without-Newgate has a special place. I went in there alone to pray on the first day of my rape trial at the Old Bailey across the road, like many Londoners for centuries before me. Because the Bailey was Newgate, of course
Marcus Walker, the Vicar of St Bartholomew, is also one of the few staunch Tory vicars still in the C of E. As you say Newgate was round the corner, William Wallace, Wat Tyler and the Protestant martyrs were all executed at Smithfield round the corner.
Christ Church Spitalfields is also worth a visit, my father did the accounts there for a few years before retiring and Florence and the Machine filmed a video there
It was interesting Frosty's article being illustrated by Great St Barts, and the associated irony.
Frost states that the "Quiet Revival" (such as it is which is something but nothing like the claims, which Frost recognises) is amongst Roman Catholics, Anglo-Catholics and Protestant evangelicals (which is a slightly strange category).
Yet Great St Barts is a thriving theologically liberal *, and liturgically traditional, parish where one of the first same sex marriages was held between two Church of England priests in 2008 by the Rector Martin Dudley - illegally. But they also maintained St Barts the Less open throughout Covid for prayer which I surmise Frosty would approve.
So his "it's the supernaturalists" claim somewhat collapses.
* Or he has come interesting category definitions, which is quite possible. He may not be differentiating between theology and style of worship, both of which can be liberal or traditionalist.
Great St Barts may have been liberal under Dudley, it certainly now isn't under Walker who is fervently high Tory Anglo Catholic with traditional BCP services and no net zero or woke obsessed sermons either. It also certainly doesn't perform same sex marriages now either, though Walker did support PLF
As an agnostic, I'm deeply offended* by this blatant display of Christianity in the middle of London. How dare they express domination over me like that?
It is amazing how this annual celebration of chocolate shaped into eggs and flavoured hot cross buns has been taken over by weird religious ideas. Modern life, eh?
Good Friday is a day for Christians to reflect on the crucifixion. Easter Sunday is the day the secular can celebrate Easter eggs and bunnies and hot cross buns with Christians for whom it is also a day of celebration of the resurrection as well as the start of Spring
Judging by the stock in shops people start celebrating easter with eggs around 1st January and buns from valentines day, so not sure your rules are working or understood. Maybe you'll need to start funding state schools similarly to private ones if you want us to be so disciplined.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
You are right, the academics are wrong.
I know plenty of academics. They are wrong some of the time too.
One question I would like answered on North Sea oil. Would any public subsidy be involved?
No.
They do get tax relief for various activities, which a lot of people describe as subsidy, even if it's really not.
If a particular sector gets preferential tax treatment it absolutely is a subsidy. I appreciate the general public thinks of direct grants only, but there are loads of ways government can support a sector other than just cash transfers.
If a particular sector is generating considerable net tax revenue, then for me at least it seems inaccurate to call it subsidised.
Some of its activities (exploration at one end, and remediation at the other) are subsidised by the tax relief. For public benefit.
Preferential tax relief counts as a subsidy under WTO definitions.
That is a red herring; they also get taxed at far higher rates than other sectors.
As long as Hormuz stays closed, yes. The expectation at least prior to this was North Sea revenues would essentially disappear over the next five years. There's no reason for believing authorising new licences will materially add to revenue in the medium term.
We seem to have gone from a £25 billion bonanza and fuel bills in pennies to will it need subsidy in a few dozen comments but such are the byways of PB.com.
Anyhow the discussion at that moment was well as my observation were about definitions. Preferential tax treatment is a subsidy as far as WTO is concerned. A subsidy doesn't require you to hand over cash
Except the UK oil and gas industry doesn't get a preferential tax treatment. Exactly the opposite. It gets a punitive tax treatment that doesn't apply to any other industry and whose main aim is to destroy the industry rather than to raise revenue. The only comp[arable tax regime I can think of is smoking.
Today in Satire is Dead - Trump has just announced VD Vance will be a new FRAUD Czar - rooting out fraud across the country especially in Dem areas.
He's been put in charge of all the administration's fraud and corruption in Dem areas?
Sounds like a pretty full-time job. Is Trump planning to try and get rid of him? Can't sack a Veep although to be fair when's the law ever stopped him?
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Even if we used no oil and gas for 'energy', we'd still need oil for plastics and pharmaceiticals, and (this is the big one) natural gas for nitrogen fertilizer.
You can make ammonia using Green Hydrogen. Green Ammonia, it is imaginatively called.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Many people are sufficiently distanced from the means of production (whether agriculture, energy or manufacturing) that they neither know nor care what the requirements of production are.
Similar to those who ask why we have to have factory farming when we can just buy meat at the supermarket
One question I would like answered on North Sea oil. Would any public subsidy be involved?
No.
They do get tax relief for various activities, which a lot of people describe as subsidy, even if it's really not.
If a particular sector gets preferential tax treatment it absolutely is a subsidy. I appreciate the general public thinks of direct grants only, but there are loads of ways government can support a sector other than just cash transfers.
If a particular sector is generating considerable net tax revenue, then for me at least it seems inaccurate to call it subsidised.
Some of its activities (exploration at one end, and remediation at the other) are subsidised by the tax relief. For public benefit.
Preferential tax relief counts as a subsidy under WTO definitions.
That is a red herring; they also get taxed at far higher rates than other sectors.
As long as Hormuz stays closed, yes. The expectation at least prior to this was North Sea revenues would essentially disappear over the next five years. There's no reason for believing authorising new licences will materially add to revenue in the medium term.
We seem to have gone from a £25 billion bonanza and fuel bills in pennies to will it need subsidy in a few dozen comments but such are the byways of PB.com.
Anyhow the discussion at that moment was well as my observation were about definitions. Preferential tax treatment is a subsidy as far as WTO is concerned. A subsidy doesn't require you to hand over cash
The oil price isn't dependent on cost of production; it's a global market determined by supply and demand. Subsidies/tax breaks shouldn't bother the WTO in the slightest here.
Preferential tax treatment is a subsidy. Whether it's an illegal subsidy under WTO rules depends on the circumstances. WTO is nearly dead so it is mostly inconsequential. But if we are discussing definitions, it's a subsidy
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Many people are sufficiently distanced from the means of production (whether agriculture, energy or manufacturing) that they neither know nor care what the requirements of production are.
I do not want to name these people on here for obvious reasons but they both work in geosciences, these are not some airy fairy theoreticians. They simply regard the global warming crisis as overwhelmingly the greatest threat to life and civilisation and think we need to do everything, no matter how small, to reduce it. As you will have gathered I strongly disagree but I always find it thought provoking when seriously intelligent and informed people hold very different views.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Even if we used no oil and gas for 'energy', we'd still need oil for plastics and pharmaceiticals, and (this is the big one) natural gas for nitrogen fertilizer.
You can make ammonia using Green Hydrogen. Green Ammonia, it is imaginatively called.
How many times the price of the conventional stuff is it currently ?
After earlier discussions of VP Vance earlier, he is now far ahead in polling of Republican voters for the 2028 GOP primaries and ahead of Trump Jr and Rubio combined.
On average it is Vance 45%, Trump Jr 15%, Rubio 13%, DeSantis 8%, Kennedy Jr 4%, Haley 3%, Carlson 3%, Cruz 2%, Ramaswamay 2%, Gabbard 1%
President Trump will ask Congress to approve roughly $1.5 trillion in funding for the military in the 2027 fiscal year, according to a budget request released by the White House on Friday. If approved, that amount would set military spending at its highest level in modern history.
NY Times
I wonder what he plans to do with an enlarged military?
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
I really hope the Iranians make a song and dance about the Geneva Convention etc etc. Deeply cynical given their record but that’s the best outcome for the pilots, Iran and the rest of the world.
That it would show up the Israelis and Americans as malignant, violent thugs is a nice bonus.
Regardless of your feelings on the war and the US and Israel, it’s ridiculous to pretend the Iranian ruling regime aren’t violent thugs too.
Wholeheartedly agree but one can still hope that they see propaganda value in treating the POWs well to reinforce the propaganda value of their 'letter to America'.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
To take a step back, it is astonishing and depressing that the main policy response and discussion from this crisis is about the North Sea. Something that has zero impact now, marginal impact in the future, and would not have protected either us from 2022/Ukraine or the umpteen fossil fuel crises to come.
So you'll forgive a deep scepticism, even loathing, of those who are prattling on about it now. It's a deeply cynical diversion away from the only lesson you can draw from this and from Ukraine - we need to stop consuming fossil fuels as fast as possible.
I think that's what driving a lot of the blunt opposition to it. We need more people like you and Richard_Tyndall making the case for both, otherwise people will understandbly sense an ulterior (or frankly open) motive.
As an agnostic, I'm deeply offended* by this blatant display of Christianity in the middle of London. How dare they express domination over me like that?
It is amazing how this annual celebration of chocolate shaped into eggs and flavoured hot cross buns has been taken over by weird religious ideas. Modern life, eh?
Good Friday is a day for Christians to reflect on the crucifixion. Easter Sunday is the day the secular can celebrate Easter eggs and bunnies and hot cross buns with Christians for whom it is also a day of celebration of the resurrection as well as the start of Spring
Judging by the stock in shops people start celebrating easter with eggs around 1st January and buns from valentines day, so not sure your rules are working or understood. Maybe you'll need to start funding state schools similarly to private ones if you want us to be so disciplined.
Well shops will obviously try and sell Easter goods as early as they can get money from them as their primary objective is to make a profit.
Though they are still of course rightly operating at least reduced hours if not shut altogether on Good Friday, in Christian state schools the Easter story of Crucifixion and Resurrection will of course be well told
As an agnostic, I'm deeply offended* by this blatant display of Christianity in the middle of London. How dare they express domination over me like that?
It is amazing how this annual celebration of chocolate shaped into eggs and flavoured hot cross buns has been taken over by weird religious ideas. Modern life, eh?
Good Friday is a day for Christians to reflect on the crucifixion. Easter Sunday is the day the secular can celebrate Easter eggs and bunnies and hot cross buns with Christians for whom it is also a day of celebration of the resurrection as well as the start of Spring
Easter is an interesting time for Unitarians, who mostly consider the whole resurrection malarkey to be a load of old bollocks.
Or a metaphor, to put it more politely. Jesus' teaching lives on, not the man himself.
I've tried the metaphor argument on some Christian colleagues at work, and got nowhere.
One question I would like answered on North Sea oil. Would any public subsidy be involved?
No.
They do get tax relief for various activities, which a lot of people describe as subsidy, even if it's really not.
If a particular sector gets preferential tax treatment it absolutely is a subsidy. I appreciate the general public thinks of direct grants only, but there are loads of ways government can support a sector other than just cash transfers.
If a particular sector is generating considerable net tax revenue, then for me at least it seems inaccurate to call it subsidised.
Some of its activities (exploration at one end, and remediation at the other) are subsidised by the tax relief. For public benefit.
Preferential tax relief counts as a subsidy under WTO definitions.
That is a red herring; they also get taxed at far higher rates than other sectors.
As long as Hormuz stays closed, yes. The expectation at least prior to this was North Sea revenues would essentially disappear over the next five years. There's no reason for believing authorising new licences will materially add to revenue in the medium term.
We seem to have gone from a £25 billion bonanza and fuel bills in pennies to will it need subsidy in a few dozen comments but such are the byways of PB.com.
Anyhow the discussion at that moment was well as my observation were about definitions. Preferential tax treatment is a subsidy as far as WTO is concerned. A subsidy doesn't require you to hand over cash
Except the UK oil and gas industry doesn't get a preferential tax treatment. Exactly the opposite. It gets a punitive tax treatment that doesn't apply to any other industry and whose main aim is to destroy the industry rather than to raise revenue. The only comp[arable tax regime I can think of is smoking.
"BP, external and Shell, external both received more money back from the UK government than they paid in tax every year from 2015 to 2020 (except Shell in 2017)."
One question I would like answered on North Sea oil. Would any public subsidy be involved?
No.
They do get tax relief for various activities, which a lot of people describe as subsidy, even if it's really not.
If a particular sector gets preferential tax treatment it absolutely is a subsidy. I appreciate the general public thinks of direct grants only, but there are loads of ways government can support a sector other than just cash transfers.
If a particular sector is generating considerable net tax revenue, then for me at least it seems inaccurate to call it subsidised.
Some of its activities (exploration at one end, and remediation at the other) are subsidised by the tax relief. For public benefit.
Preferential tax relief counts as a subsidy under WTO definitions.
That is a red herring; they also get taxed at far higher rates than other sectors.
As long as Hormuz stays closed, yes. The expectation at least prior to this was North Sea revenues would essentially disappear over the next five years. There's no reason for believing authorising new licences will materially add to revenue in the medium term.
We seem to have gone from a £25 billion bonanza and fuel bills in pennies to will it need subsidy in a few dozen comments but such are the byways of PB.com.
Anyhow the discussion at that moment was well as my observation were about definitions. Preferential tax treatment is a subsidy as far as WTO is concerned. A subsidy doesn't require you to hand over cash
The oil price isn't dependent on cost of production; it's a global market determined by supply and demand. Subsidies/tax breaks shouldn't bother the WTO in the slightest here.
Preferential tax treatment is a subsidy. Whether it's an illegal subsidy under WTO rules depends on the circumstances. WTO is nearly dead so it is mostly inconsequential. But if we are discussing definitions, it's a subsidy
There would have to be a preferential tax treatment for that to be relevant.
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
That's an important moment. By Trump and Hegseth's and the current USA's declared ethical values, Might is Right, and the Geneva Conventiona by implication have no meaning.
Presumably Hegseth thinks the Iranians should give no quarter.
As an agnostic, I'm deeply offended* by this blatant display of Christianity in the middle of London. How dare they express domination over me like that?
It is amazing how this annual celebration of chocolate shaped into eggs and flavoured hot cross buns has been taken over by weird religious ideas. Modern life, eh?
Good Friday is a day for Christians to reflect on the crucifixion. Easter Sunday is the day the secular can celebrate Easter eggs and bunnies and hot cross buns with Christians for whom it is also a day of celebration of the resurrection as well as the start of Spring
Easter is an interesting time for Unitarians, who mostly consider the whole resurrection malarkey to be a load of old bollocks.
Or a metaphor, to put it more politely. Jesus' teaching lives on, not the man himself.
I've tried the metaphor argument on some Christian colleagues at work, and got nowhere.
Unitarians are now less than 0.1% of the UK population, they are now an endangered species. 46% of the population are still Christian though overall on the last census
As an agnostic, I'm deeply offended* by this blatant display of Christianity in the middle of London. How dare they express domination over me like that?
It is amazing how this annual celebration of chocolate shaped into eggs and flavoured hot cross buns has been taken over by weird religious ideas. Modern life, eh?
Good Friday is a day for Christians to reflect on the crucifixion. Easter Sunday is the day the secular can celebrate Easter eggs and bunnies and hot cross buns with Christians for whom it is also a day of celebration of the resurrection as well as the start of Spring
Judging by the stock in shops people start celebrating easter with eggs around 1st January and buns from valentines day, so not sure your rules are working or understood. Maybe you'll need to start funding state schools similarly to private ones if you want us to be so disciplined.
Happily, M&S stocks hot cross buns all year round.
However, it is only at the back end of the year that you can enjoy the hot cross bun & mince pie combo.
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
That's an important moment. By Trump and Hegseth's and the current USA's declared ethical values, Might is Right, and the Geneva Conventiona by implication have no meaning.
Presumably Hegseth thinks the Iranians should give no quarter.
Oops I see I'm about an hour late making that point
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
That's an important moment. By Trump and Hegseth's and the current USA's declared ethical values, Might is Right, and the Geneva Conventiona by implication have no meaning.
Presumably Hegseth thinks the Iranians should give no quarter.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Many people are sufficiently distanced from the means of production (whether agriculture, energy or manufacturing) that they neither know nor care what the requirements of production are.
I do not want to name these people on here for obvious reasons but they both work in geosciences, these are not some airy fairy theoreticians. They simply regard the global warming crisis as overwhelmingly the greatest threat to life and civilisation and think we need to do everything, no matter how small, to reduce it. As you will have gathered I strongly disagree but I always find it thought provoking when seriously intelligent and informed people hold very different views.
Another view i have heard is that if we have civilisational collapse, we will need a store of hydrocarbons to reindustrialise afterwards.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Even if we used no oil and gas for 'energy', we'd still need oil for plastics and pharmaceiticals, and (this is the big one) natural gas for nitrogen fertilizer.
You can make ammonia using Green Hydrogen. Green Ammonia, it is imaginatively called.
How many times the price of the conventional stuff is it currently ?
That depends on whether you factor in the ETS costs or not.
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
I really hope the Iranians make a song and dance about the Geneva Convention etc etc. Deeply cynical given their record but that’s the best outcome for the pilots, Iran and the rest of the world.
That it would show up the Israelis and Americans as malignant, violent thugs is a nice bonus.
Regardless of your feelings on the war and the US and Israel, it’s ridiculous to pretend the Iranian ruling regime aren’t violent thugs too.
Wholeheartedly agree but one can still hope that they see propaganda value in treating the POWs well to reinforce the propaganda value of their 'letter to America'.
It should not need stating given my original post was clear (somehow Gallowgate and Big_G_NorthWales have misconstrued it), but my point was that if the IRGC behave as normal and we witness the torture and public execution of a US pilot, the chance of peace is nil, Hormuz is closed for basically ever, and it gives Netanyahu and Trump twisted justification to wipe out Iranian (and Lebanese) civilian populations.
As such I hope they play for worldwide public opinion here rather than go full death-cult. Dura_Ace is right that I'm being optimistic.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Many people are sufficiently distanced from the means of production (whether agriculture, energy or manufacturing) that they neither know nor care what the requirements of production are.
Similar to those who ask why we have to have factory farming when we can just buy meat at the supermarket
Does anyone actually ask that? If that's a real thing then I'm a bit speechless...
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
I really hope the Iranians make a song and dance about the Geneva Convention etc etc. Deeply cynical given their record but that’s the best outcome for the pilots, Iran and the rest of the world.
That it would show up the Israelis and Americans as malignant, violent thugs is a nice bonus.
Regardless of your feelings on the war and the US and Israel, it’s ridiculous to pretend the Iranian ruling regime aren’t violent thugs too.
Wholeheartedly agree but one can still hope that they see propaganda value in treating the POWs well to reinforce the propaganda value of their 'letter to America'.
It should not need stating given my original post was clear (somehow Gallowgate and Big_G_NorthWales have misconstrued it), but my point was that if the IRGC behave as normal and we witness the torture and public execution of a US pilot, the chance of peace is nil, Hormuz is closed for basically ever, and it gives Netanyahu and Trump twisted justification to wipe out Iranian (and Lebanese) civilian populations.
As such I hope they play for worldwide public opinion here rather than go full death-cult. Dura_Ace is right that I'm being optimistic.
If they offer to trade these two pilots for Trump and Netanyahu, that will leave all of us who hate Iran with an awful dilemma.
Should the Iranians have Trump and Netanyahu shot or hanged?
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
I really hope the Iranians make a song and dance about the Geneva Convention etc etc. Deeply cynical given their record but that’s the best outcome for the pilots, Iran and the rest of the world.
That it would show up the Israelis and Americans as malignant, violent thugs is a nice bonus.
Regardless of your feelings on the war and the US and Israel, it’s ridiculous to pretend the Iranian ruling regime aren’t violent thugs too.
Wholeheartedly agree but one can still hope that they see propaganda value in treating the POWs well to reinforce the propaganda value of their 'letter to America'.
It should not need stating given my original post was clear (somehow Gallowgate and Big_G_NorthWales have misconstrued it), but my point was that if the IRGC behave as normal and we witness the torture and public execution of a US pilot, the chance of peace is nil, Hormuz is closed for basically ever, and it gives Netanyahu and Trump twisted justification to wipe out Iranian (and Lebanese) civilian populations.
As such I hope they play for worldwide public opinion here rather than go full death-cult. Dura_Ace is right that I'm being optimistic.
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
I really hope the Iranians make a song and dance about the Geneva Convention etc etc. Deeply cynical given their record but that’s the best outcome for the pilots, Iran and the rest of the world.
That it would show up the Israelis and Americans as malignant, violent thugs is a nice bonus.
Regardless of your feelings on the war and the US and Israel, it’s ridiculous to pretend the Iranian ruling regime aren’t violent thugs too.
Wholeheartedly agree but one can still hope that they see propaganda value in treating the POWs well to reinforce the propaganda value of their 'letter to America'.
It should not need stating given my original post was clear (somehow Gallowgate and Big_G_NorthWales have misconstrued it), but my point was that if the IRGC behave as normal and we witness the torture and public execution of a US pilot, the chance of peace is nil, Hormuz is closed for basically ever, and it gives Netanyahu and Trump twisted justification to wipe out Iranian (and Lebanese) civilian populations.
As such I hope they play for worldwide public opinion here rather than go full death-cult. Dura_Ace is right that I'm being optimistic.
The normal play for Iran seems to be to hold on to a hostage until the other party pays the ransom.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Many people are sufficiently distanced from the means of production (whether agriculture, energy or manufacturing) that they neither know nor care what the requirements of production are.
Similar to those who ask why we have to have factory farming when we can just buy meat at the supermarket
Does anyone actually ask that? If that's a real thing then I'm a bit speechless...
I have heard it on two seperate occasions from people old enough to know better when at anti-vivisection meetings. Neither of them in the last decade admitedly but it always stuck in my mind. The first time I laughed out loud, as did the lady chairing the meeting as we genuinely thought it was meant as a joke. Needless to say it was made very clear that it wasn't. It did mean I was forewarned the second time around and tried to be more balanced in my reply.
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
That's an important moment. By Trump and Hegseth's and the current USA's declared ethical values, Might is Right, and the Geneva Conventiona by implication have no meaning.
Presumably Hegseth thinks the Iranians should give no quarter.
Ben Gvir demonstrated Israel's thoughts on all this the other day
One question I would like answered on North Sea oil. Would any public subsidy be involved?
No.
They do get tax relief for various activities, which a lot of people describe as subsidy, even if it's really not.
If a particular sector gets preferential tax treatment it absolutely is a subsidy. I appreciate the general public thinks of direct grants only, but there are loads of ways government can support a sector other than just cash transfers.
If a particular sector is generating considerable net tax revenue, then for me at least it seems inaccurate to call it subsidised.
Some of its activities (exploration at one end, and remediation at the other) are subsidised by the tax relief. For public benefit.
Preferential tax relief counts as a subsidy under WTO definitions.
That is a red herring; they also get taxed at far higher rates than other sectors.
As long as Hormuz stays closed, yes. The expectation at least prior to this was North Sea revenues would essentially disappear over the next five years. There's no reason for believing authorising new licences will materially add to revenue in the medium term.
We seem to have gone from a £25 billion bonanza and fuel bills in pennies to will it need subsidy in a few dozen comments but such are the byways of PB.com.
Anyhow the discussion at that moment was well as my observation were about definitions. Preferential tax treatment is a subsidy as far as WTO is concerned. A subsidy doesn't require you to hand over cash
The oil price isn't dependent on cost of production; it's a global market determined by supply and demand. Subsidies/tax breaks shouldn't bother the WTO in the slightest here.
Preferential tax treatment is a subsidy. Whether it's an illegal subsidy under WTO rules depends on the circumstances. WTO is nearly dead so it is mostly inconsequential. But if we are discussing definitions, it's a subsidy
Again, you have to look at the overall picture. It's not "preferential tax treatment" when the tax on production is massively higher than other corporate taxes. What is the net figure ?
Electoral Calculus has an interesting new April projection with Reform first on 266 seats, the Tories second on 107 and Greens third on 74. Followed by the LDs on 69 MPs and Labour on 63
Interesting to see an article by Richard Rose on there. He was ITN's election expert on their 1974 election night show. He was around 40 then so must be about 92 now.
Comments
I make the point it was in dry dick, was called a liar. The fact it's what it is makes it even. More of a Kemi faux pa's.
A Tory donor visit to Aberdeen
A Tory donir visit the next day to fill in a pot hole in a new JCB
Political prostitution
The one thing the Tories are world class at.
It is only twitter though so far.
As opposed to
- an offensive bombing mission
- a quite rude bombing mission
- an in-your-face-in-a-mildly-confrontational-way bombing mission
etc
And yes @Brixian59 cannot spell properly including Conwy
@Richard_Tyndall made a fair point
A French general just looked at Trump’s plan to build a runway inside Iran to fly out uranium under active bombing.
His response: “American officials should stop snorting cocaine between meetings.”
https://bsky.app/profile/alexjungle.bsky.social/post/3milmkw4ens23
Certainly they’ll view them as leverage moving forward.
https://youtu.be/ypEaGQb6dJk?t=473
Volodymyr Zelenskyy: "Russian losses this March have reached their highest level since the start of the war: our drone strikes alone resulted in 33,988 Russian servicemembers killed or seriously wounded, while artillery and other strikes eliminated another 1,363 Russian occupiers."
https://bsky.app/profile/london.gov.uk/post/3milz57xtpk27
*(No I'm not I'm kidding)
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
The plan was designed so all four main services of the Department of Defense would have a part: Army, Navy, Air Force and the Marine Corps. It was planned that helicopters and C-130 aircraft, following different routes, would rendezvous on a salt flat (code-named Desert One) 200 miles (320 km) southeast of Tehran. Here the helicopters would refuel from the C-130s and pick up the combat troops who had flown in on the C-130 transports. The helicopters would then transport the troops to a mountain location (Desert Two) closer to Tehran, from which the rescue raid would be launched into the city the following night. The operation was further to be supported by an in-country CIA team. On completion of the raid, hostages were to be taken to a captured Tehran airport from where they were to be flown to Egypt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw#Planning_and_preparation
In fact I made that very point.
Kill a local taxi driver, take his car and then full send to the Iraqi border would be my plan.
A C130 that was modified to near VSTOL
According to Nigel Farage. Personally I think the ghastly one is someone else.
One of the crew members of the US F-15E jet downed in Iran has been successfully rescued, Channel 12 reports.
[Looks outside]
What were they thinking?
Subsidies/tax breaks shouldn't bother the WTO in the slightest here.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Any suggestions for the rest of the Muppet Show running the country?
And we are locking in demand for natural gas until 2050, thanks to the CCGT and Blue Hydrogen plants that DESNZ is supporting.
I'm a broken record on this issue, but all it needs is EdM to see sense and I'll be able to shut up about it.
We spend £2 billion a year in tariffs and transport costs over and above the actual cost of the product to import gas from Norway and the US. We also import oil from places with far lower environmental standards than the UK.
Put simply, your academicss are supporting more pollution., not less and are expecting the UK to pay for it as well.
It is hypocritical and idiotic.
No one should be cheering either side, each of whom doesn't give a fuck about their civilians.
I know plenty of academics. They are wrong some of the time too.
Sounds like a pretty full-time job. Is Trump planning to try and get rid of him? Can't sack a Veep although to be fair when's the law ever stopped him?
Trump: "Hey, that's a great idea."
On average it is Vance 45%, Trump Jr 15%, Rubio 13%, DeSantis 8%, Kennedy Jr 4%, Haley 3%, Carlson 3%, Cruz 2%, Ramaswamay 2%, Gabbard 1%
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/republican-primary/2028/national
War update:
Russia helps Iran resist Trump, succeeds
Russia helps Cuba resist Trump, succeeds
Trump helps Russia invade Ukraine, fails
NY Times
I wonder what he plans to do with an enlarged military?
So you'll forgive a deep scepticism, even loathing, of those who are prattling on about it now. It's a deeply cynical diversion away from the only lesson you can draw from this and from Ukraine - we need to stop consuming fossil fuels as fast as possible.
I think that's what driving a lot of the blunt opposition to it. We need more people like you and Richard_Tyndall making the case for both, otherwise people will understandbly sense an ulterior (or frankly open) motive.
Though they are still of course rightly operating at least reduced hours if not shut altogether on Good Friday, in Christian state schools the Easter story of Crucifixion and Resurrection will of course be well told
Or a metaphor, to put it more politely. Jesus' teaching lives on, not the man himself.
I've tried the metaphor argument on some Christian colleagues at work, and got nowhere.
It's our church, and I'm very traditional.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60295177
That doesn't sound crazily punitive to me.
Taxes on profits have the difficulty that companies often manage to hide their profits.
Ultimately no govt in my lifetime has made big corporations pay what they should, and with big tech I think its only getting worse.
Quite the contrary is the case instead.
However, it is only at the back end of the year that you can enjoy the hot cross bun & mince pie combo.
'Yes, indeed, Father!'
'Yet you do not seem a regular churchgoer?'
'None better Father! Every Easter.'
Al Capone was jailed for his tax frauds.
But yes, it is expensive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmCAzdJmSXA
As such I hope they play for worldwide public opinion here rather than go full death-cult. Dura_Ace is right that I'm being optimistic.
Should the Iranians have Trump and Netanyahu shot or hanged?
As we did, which we should not have.
It's not "preferential tax treatment" when the tax on production is massively higher than other corporate taxes.
What is the net figure ?