The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
By making the supposed calamity worse, as does the wider climate junket industry. 'New York Climate Week' with 100 people - fucks sake. It would be tragic if it wasn't so laughable.
"British armed forces have intercepted a Russian shadow fleet oil tanker in the English Channel the early hours of Sunday morning, Sir Keir Starmer has said."
How incredibly convenient given, only days earlier, grave fears over the readiness and capabilities of the British armed forces were voiced. They must think we are all complete fucking idiots.
Russia can’t even take and hold a few provinces in Ukraine.
How are they likely to invade the rest of Europe?
They do think people are fucking idiots. There’s a good reason for that.
Marcellino: Pane e Vino - Spanish. Not much known here. Cried buckets.
The Railway Children - smoke on the platform, "Daddy, Oh my Daddy!"
Brief Encounter - when he puts his hand on her shoulder and walks out of her life. Lately, I rather wish Celia Johnson had pushed her irritating friend onto the tracks and run off with Trevor Howard instead of going back to darning socks in front of Boring Old Husband.
That would be a very different film.
Hitchcock rather than Lean, with Miklós Rózsa in place of Rachmaninov ?
And imagine being stuck for life with Trevor Howard.
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
, hey dumbo , Couthino runs rings round that dullard Milliband. She can actually speak properly as well, no gibberish.
PS: Is it any wonder the world laughs at UK with that dumb cluck representing us on the world stage.
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
About one thing, Sir Keir is absolutely right. “There are no easy decisions,” he said on Friday. “Whoever is prime minister is going to face the same prevailing winds as I am facing.” A leadership change will not magically produce additional resources for defence – or for anything else for that matter. Sorting out the dangerous mess over security will be at the top of the groaning plate of challenges facing any of the possible successors to Sir Keir. They’ll need to have a solution if they aspire to be an improvement on a Fubar government.
The same challenge also affects every other alternative Government including ones headed by Farage, Badenoch, Polanski and Davey.
It's the first of a series (I suspect) of such crunch issues which challenge how we have jogged on arguably over the last 5-7 years.
Essentially, the question is - IF you think more should be spent on defence, from where does the funding come absent significant economic growth? The options are either to cut spending - "welfare" seems the favoured option but whose welfare and by how much or raise taxes - a hypothecated 2p increase in basic rate tax to fund additional defence?
The problem is the former will be opposed by those who enjoy their welfare and benefits and the latter by those who think they pay too much tax as it is and each will point to the other and day they should pay.
The poor Government is caught in the middle - it has three options, pick a side, anatagonise both sides by doing both or doing neither and hoping, pace Micawber, something will turn up.
What governments have done recently is to find a short-term expedient that will make things look okay in the short-term, but make things even harder to sort out after the next election.
All the bills for the can-kicking of the past are falling due. The only sane way out is to convince the public that there's a tough road ahead, but we can get out of the hole if we're honest about the mistakes made in the past.
It might be quicker and easier to invent a time machine than trying to convince the voters of reality.
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
How thick are you, Coutinho spent one tenth you absolute donkey.
Not aimed at Lucky Guy rather the clown that thinks Milliband is not an absolute moron
Cut welfare and spend the money on defence instead. No need for tax rises
So let's look into where the so-called peace dividend went. What did governments spend more on after the 1990s as they spent less on defence? Because we will have to spend less on these things if we want to increase spending on defence without raising taxes.
Turns out the big increases are health then pensioner welfare and non pensioner welfare.
So when Badenoch and others glibly talk about funding defence through welfare cuts do they actually want to reduce people's access to healthcare and do a triple unlock to reduce pensions?
"Home Office limits ‘one in, one out’ migrant deal with France
Officials fear the border scheme to effectively trade small boat arrivals for asylum seekers brings in ‘young men more likely to engage in criminal activity’"
I was in Farnham last night for a meal with my wife.
I don't want to profile and at the same time two noisy motorbikes turned up suddenly on the high street outside our restaurant with two middle-eastern looking men on each of them, wearing bandanas covering their faces, and they had dark hair. They looked angry.
They did an about turn in the middle of the high-street, made a massive noise with their engines, and then revved off again. All my red flags were going off and I was ready to whip my wife out the restaurant on the high street, and head off out and away from there.
In the event nothing (that I could see) happened but it was all very weird and discomforting. Whole thing was about 8 seconds long and a flash in a pan. But where had they come from suddenly? Why were they there? What were they doing?
Maybe they just wanted a ride.
A free ride ?
That’s our strength and what makes Britain what it is. They’re the people who built this country
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
Good morning
Miliband should have been moved and Starmer open the North Sea
Also
Amusing to see @Brixian59 meet his match with @malcolmg giving him both barrels
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Milliband is a completely fake arse and should have been out on it many years ago. Typifies the type of usual grubbing twat in government that has the country in the state it is in. The clown could not run a bath but manages to fill his boots from the public. Another moron who has never had a real job , just spent his time in politics sliming up the greasy pole.
Go and crawl down your GB News worm hole.
In 25 years when coastal erosion and flooding in many parts of the Country is the norm youll have your epitaph
F888ing lunatic , go and have aeronautical sexual intercourse with a rolling doughnut you sad loser. I seriously hope I am here to see it and still be laughing at absolute arseholes like you benefits junkies.
7/10 on the quality insult scale. A partial return to lost form from @malcolmg. Inventive, but needs more depth and carry through.
"A Labour MP has hit out at “neo-colonial” animal rights activists after they launched a campaign to ban gannet hunting on Scotland’s Isle of Lewis.
Torcuil Crichton, the MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, told The Telegraph he had been attempting to ignore the English activist group Protect the Wild, but that he could no longer keep silent over its campaign.
He said: “When it gets so far, it is time to speak.”
Mr Crichton said: “It’s a kind of neo-colonialism – people thinking that they know better than people who have lived with the environment and with the bird life and sea life for centuries.”"
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Milliband is a completely fake arse and should have been out on it many years ago. Typifies the type of usual grubbing twat in government that has the country in the state it is in. The clown could not run a bath but manages to fill his boots from the public. Another moron who has never had a real job , just spent his time in politics sliming up the greasy pole.
Go and crawl down your GB News worm hole.
In 25 years when coastal erosion and flooding in many parts of the Country is the norm youll have your epitaph
F888ing lunatic , go and have aeronautical sexual intercourse with a rolling doughnut you sad loser. I seriously hope I am here to see it and still be laughing at absolute arseholes like you benefits junkies.
7/10 on the quality insult scale. A partial return to lost form from @malcolmg. Inventive, but needs more depth and carry through.
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
The obvious reason for spending money on CCS is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
"Why do employers think it’s OK to ghost job applicants? Businesses that complain it is hard to recruit the right staff should look at themselves too Robert Shrimsley" (£)
"A Labour MP has hit out at “neo-colonial” animal rights activists after they launched a campaign to ban gannet hunting on Scotland’s Isle of Lewis.
Torcuil Crichton, the MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, told The Telegraph he had been attempting to ignore the English activist group Protect the Wild, but that he could no longer keep silent over its campaign.
He said: “When it gets so far, it is time to speak.”
Mr Crichton said: “It’s a kind of neo-colonialism – people thinking that they know better than people who have lived with the environment and with the bird life and sea life for centuries.”"
That reminds me of my youth in the mid fifties when we used to climb the rocky cliffs around St Abbs Head (by Eyemouth) for gulls eggs and gannets would fiercely attack us and vomit over us
It was a time when people collected gulls eggs, indeed most birds eggs, a practice which thankfully is now illegal
Cut welfare and spend the money on defence instead. No need for tax rises
So let's look into where the so-called peace dividend went. What did governments spend more on after the 1990s as they spent less on defence? Because we will have to spend less on these things if we want to increase spending on defence without raising taxes.
Turns out the big increases are health then pensioner welfare and non pensioner welfare.
So when Badenoch and others glibly talk about funding defence through welfare cuts do they actually want to reduce people's access to healthcare and do a triple unlock to reduce pensions?
"Home Office limits ‘one in, one out’ migrant deal with France
Officials fear the border scheme to effectively trade small boat arrivals for asylum seekers brings in ‘young men more likely to engage in criminal activity’"
I was in Farnham last night for a meal with my wife.
I don't want to profile and at the same time two noisy motorbikes turned up suddenly on the high street outside our restaurant with two middle-eastern looking men on each of them, wearing bandanas covering their faces, and they had dark hair. They looked angry.
They did an about turn in the middle of the high-street, made a massive noise with their engines, and then revved off again. All my red flags were going off and I was ready to whip my wife out the restaurant on the high street, and head off out and away from there.
In the event nothing (that I could see) happened but it was all very weird and discomforting. Whole thing was about 8 seconds long and a flash in a pan. But where had they come from suddenly? Why were they there? What were they doing?
Maybe they just wanted a ride.
A free ride ?
That’s our strength and what makes Britain what it is. They’re the people who built this country
It's telling that I've been hesitant to report it to the police, and "hoping" other had instead.
They would ask me to describe the individuals involved, and give me own details, and there's too much risk of me being labelled a racist.
I love watching a former soldier turned MP getting found out, whichever side they're on. We need to stop putting them on a pedestal. It's not as common as thinking someone will be a good leader because they've "been in business" but it's just as silly.
After 2 world wars I imagine being ex military and being formed by the experience was pretty normal. Unfortunately as those generations have disappeared it's now been fetishised.
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
The obvious reason for spending money on CCS is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
CCS is heavily promoted by oil producers so they can continue to pump out their product while getting others to pay for the clean up. It has little to do with Net Zero.
It was also was a project of the previous Conservative government. Miliband hasn't done anything beyond not actually shutting it down. I am beginning to think Miliband Derangement Syndrome might really be a thing on here.
BBC going big on the shadow tanker and ar brave lads.
Frank Gardner: ‘the English Channel, or La Manche as the French call it’
That’s why he gets the big bucks I suppose.
Is this it now then? War with Russia. Has it come before we're ready?
The two HMS warships used in the operation were HMS Sutherland (commissioned 4th July 1997) and HMS Ledbury (commissioned 11th June 1981).
They're a good example of how salami-slicing the defence budget has made it so inefficient. You cut the budget for new ships, and instead rely on extending the life of your existing ships. You spend loads of money on refits, and life-extension repairs for your existing ships, during which time they aren't available for use. You end up spending more money than you planned, to have a less capable ship, mostly not available for service.
And now it means you need to build ships twice as fast to catch up on the ship-building you deferred, but the shipyards are closed and the skilled staff were let go, so to recreate the ship-building capacity you will need to pay £££.
When you've had a period of sweating your existing assets to destruction it's always going to cost lots to make good the situation. You can't do that just by making the existing budget more "efficient". One of the reasons the budget became inefficient was that it wasn't big enough.
The Japanese model is the one to follow.
Japan has a massive commercial shipbuilding industry and so has the industrial capacity and skills. The ONLY ships that are built in the UK are incredibly expensive and massively delayed warships. So the Japan model isn't remotely feasible.
Building the hulls somewhere cheap and then adding all the high value systems like weapons and sensors in the UK would make a lot of sense and be a lot more effective. It'll never happen though as the UK now has three surface ship yards that are politically impossible to close down and so will have to be kept building incredibly expensive and massively delayed warships. We're basically trying to be a Tier 1 warship builder without any commercial shipbuilding to support it which is impossible.
That's another good point.
"Back in the day" we had uber-commercial shipbuilding to smooth the load. And it was normal for yards to do both military and civilian contracts.
It's not the civilian industry - though there's no good reason why we cannot have a civilian shipbuilding sector. Europe is dominant in cruise ships, and superyachts, energy services, perhaps ice protected ships, and other sectors. That's more a national attitude and culture here in the UK - perhaps a downside of being dominated by financial services, which needs feedstock.
Japan has a military shipbuilding heartbeat that is steady for decades, rather than feast and famine. Then if the size of the navy is adjusted, it is done by adjusting the service life rather than destroying the industry - sell it, scrap it, or put it in reserve. Here is the list of in service dates for ships - look at the consistency.
Even if we were running one frigate / destroyer every 2-3 years at 2 yards, and one submarine every 2 years, it could follow the same principle.
Japan runs a significantly larger navy than we do.
Nevertheless, I agree - we should think far more industry-first. We don't get capital spending in this country and bugger about it with it all the time, which kills the supply chain.
Congratulations to Scotland on their win - Haiti had demolished the All Whites in their warm up game which makes me think the Kiwis will struggle against Iran tomorrow (or indeed the morning after).
On the EU, about which I fear we will be hearing plenty this coming week even though for betting types it's the greatest five days of the whole year at Ascot, we simply couldn't go on as we were with our half-hearted, rebate-obsessed membership.
Rather like the Hokey Cokey, ever since Messina, there have only been two coherent positions - our whole selves in or our whole selves out. We COULD have gone in enthusaistically moving to the Euro, Schengen and pushing for deeper and faster political integration.
We could equally have sat on the sidelines, wishing the project well and enjoying some form of free trade agreement.
Incredibly, we did neither.
In fairness we did with the pillars of Maastricht. But then Blair and Brown screwed it up by insisting we had to be at the heart of Europe and we ended up out. Major's solution was complex but really was the answer for the UK.
If memory serves, it wasn't just the UK which came to see the inadequacies of the "three pillars" after 15 years. Those who wanted deeper integration pushed for their removal as part of Lisbon.
Many on here (and elsewhere) have argued we should have had a referendum on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Ireland did and rejected the treaty in the summer of 2008 only for a second referendum, once concessions had been made to Dublin, to prodice a two thirds majority in favour.
Had we also held a referendum, would we have rejected it and what would have happened if we had? I suspect it would have revealed deep splits in both the Labour and Conservative parties which, a year or so before a likely election, would have transformed the election agenda.
There's an interesting counterfactual on that which I must one day develop on alternatehistory.com
I think the problem was that by that point it was very hard to conceive any version of the Lisbon treaty that we would consent to in a referendum. Brown certainly had his doubts which is why he avoided having one.
There was pressure from some countries to waive the opt outs that Maastricht had given but that pressure could have been resisted if our government had not been so out of touch with the views of the population. After all, Sweden has been "under pressure" to adopt the Euro for decades and France has basically been out of Schengen since about 2016.
Freedom of movement was the biggest challenge. Instead of tens of thousands we ended up with nearly 4m Europeans coming here which not only aggravated our housing and infrastructure limitations but also created massive competition for many of the indigenous population reducing both employment opportunities and wages.
Would a successful compromise have been possible? Well, the Cameron effort, which was somewhat half hearted, suggested that it would have been difficult but the powers that be in both the UK and the EU did not believe that people would ever vote to leave and felt able and entitled to override their wishes. The outcome of failing to find a compromise that worked has been fairly suboptimal for both sides. Even although the consequences of Brexit have been grossly overstated (as the series of thread headers on here showed recently) there was still a better way ahead if a compromise could have been found.
We are a European nation faced with similar challenges and sharing similar aspirations to the other nations sharing our continent. Peace, prosperity, democracy, rule of law, social progress.
The European Union, for all its imperfections, is the continent's political project to meet these challenges and aspirations. We were part of it, now we're not.
Forget the stats, all of that economy and immigration stuff, what it really boils down to is a matter of personal psychology. Do you feel good about being in there in the thick of a common endeavour, or do you feel in some way trapped or demeaned by it.
"Home Office limits ‘one in, one out’ migrant deal with France
Officials fear the border scheme to effectively trade small boat arrivals for asylum seekers brings in ‘young men more likely to engage in criminal activity’"
I was in Farnham last night for a meal with my wife.
I don't want to profile and at the same time two noisy motorbikes turned up suddenly on the high street outside our restaurant with two middle-eastern looking men on each of them, wearing bandanas covering their faces, and they had dark hair. They looked angry.
They did an about turn in the middle of the high-street, made a massive noise with their engines, and then revved off again. All my red flags were going off and I was ready to whip my wife out the restaurant on the high street, and head off out and away from there.
In the event nothing (that I could see) happened but it was all very weird and discomforting. Whole thing was about 8 seconds long and a flash in a pan. But where had they come from suddenly? Why were they there? What were they doing?
Maybe they just wanted a ride.
A free ride ?
That’s our strength and what makes Britain what it is. They’re the people who built this country
It's telling that I've been hesitant to report it to the police, and "hoping" other had instead.
They would ask me to describe the individuals involved, and give me own details, and there's too much risk of me being labelled a racist.
I remember the poor old security guard at the Manchester Arena who was worried he’d be called a racist if he approached the suicide bomber.
Cut welfare and spend the money on defence instead. No need for tax rises
So let's look into where the so-called peace dividend went. What did governments spend more on after the 1990s as they spent less on defence? Because we will have to spend less on these things if we want to increase spending on defence without raising taxes.
Turns out the big increases are health then pensioner welfare and non pensioner welfare.
So when Badenoch and others glibly talk about funding defence through welfare cuts do they actually want to reduce people's access to healthcare and do a triple unlock to reduce pensions?
That debt interest is absolutely catastrophic. A gross act of fiscal vandalism to have incurred all that debt during COVID without coming up with a way to pay for it. I'm afraid national crises like pandemic and war need eye-watering taxes on high earners (like me) and we'll be paying the price for decaes to come because we ignored that reality.
"Why do employers think it’s OK to ghost job applicants? Businesses that complain it is hard to recruit the right staff should look at themselves too Robert Shrimsley" (£)
"Why do employers think it’s OK to ghost job applicants? Businesses that complain it is hard to recruit the right staff should look at themselves too Robert Shrimsley" (£)
"A Labour MP has hit out at “neo-colonial” animal rights activists after they launched a campaign to ban gannet hunting on Scotland’s Isle of Lewis.
Torcuil Crichton, the MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, told The Telegraph he had been attempting to ignore the English activist group Protect the Wild, but that he could no longer keep silent over its campaign.
He said: “When it gets so far, it is time to speak.”
Mr Crichton said: “It’s a kind of neo-colonialism – people thinking that they know better than people who have lived with the environment and with the bird life and sea life for centuries.”"
Cut welfare and spend the money on defence instead. No need for tax rises
So let's look into where the so-called peace dividend went. What did governments spend more on after the 1990s as they spent less on defence? Because we will have to spend less on these things if we want to increase spending on defence without raising taxes.
Turns out the big increases are health then pensioner welfare and non pensioner welfare.
So when Badenoch and others glibly talk about funding defence through welfare cuts do they actually want to reduce people's access to healthcare and do a triple unlock to reduce pensions?
That debt interest is absolutely catastrophic. A gross act of fiscal vandalism to have incurred all that debt during COVID without coming up with a way to pay for it. I'm afraid national crises like pandemic and war need eye-watering taxes on high earners (like me) and we'll be paying the price for decaes to come because we ignored that reality.
"Home Office limits ‘one in, one out’ migrant deal with France
Officials fear the border scheme to effectively trade small boat arrivals for asylum seekers brings in ‘young men more likely to engage in criminal activity’"
I was in Farnham last night for a meal with my wife.
I don't want to profile and at the same time two noisy motorbikes turned up suddenly on the high street outside our restaurant with two middle-eastern looking men on each of them, wearing bandanas covering their faces, and they had dark hair. They looked angry.
They did an about turn in the middle of the high-street, made a massive noise with their engines, and then revved off again. All my red flags were going off and I was ready to whip my wife out the restaurant on the high street, and head off out and away from there.
In the event nothing (that I could see) happened but it was all very weird and discomforting. Whole thing was about 8 seconds long and a flash in a pan. But where had they come from suddenly? Why were they there? What were they doing?
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
The obvious reason for spending money on CCS is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
CCS is heavily promoted by oil producers so they can continue to pump out their product while getting others to pay for the clean up. It has little to do with Net Zero.
It was also was a project of the previous Conservative government. Miliband hasn't done anything beyond not actually shutting it down. I am beginning to think Miliband Derangement Syndrome might really be a thing on here.
About one thing, Sir Keir is absolutely right. “There are no easy decisions,” he said on Friday. “Whoever is prime minister is going to face the same prevailing winds as I am facing.” A leadership change will not magically produce additional resources for defence – or for anything else for that matter. Sorting out the dangerous mess over security will be at the top of the groaning plate of challenges facing any of the possible successors to Sir Keir. They’ll need to have a solution if they aspire to be an improvement on a Fubar government.
The same challenge also affects every other alternative Government including ones headed by Farage, Badenoch, Polanski and Davey.
It's the first of a series (I suspect) of such crunch issues which challenge how we have jogged on arguably over the last 5-7 years.
Essentially, the question is - IF you think more should be spent on defence, from where does the funding come absent significant economic growth? The options are either to cut spending - "welfare" seems the favoured option but whose welfare and by how much or raise taxes - a hypothecated 2p increase in basic rate tax to fund additional defence?
The problem is the former will be opposed by those who enjoy their welfare and benefits and the latter by those who think they pay too much tax as it is and each will point to the other and day they should pay.
The poor Government is caught in the middle - it has three options, pick a side, anatagonise both sides by doing both or doing neither and hoping, pace Micawber, something will turn up.
What governments have done recently is to find a short-term expedient that will make things look okay in the short-term, but make things even harder to sort out after the next election.
All the bills for the can-kicking of the past are falling due. The only sane way out is to convince the public that there's a tough road ahead, but we can get out of the hole if we're honest about the mistakes made in the past.
It might be quicker and easier to invent a time machine than trying to convince the voters of reality.
We ought to at least give it a decent try.
Agreed, I'll start work on the flux capacitor, do you want to have a go at designing the vessel?
I wonder how much of the Kilted Army (if what I hear from Boston is correct) have rooms booked for the second stage of the competition.
Got to get there first… But can do no more than win. Morocco and Brazil are a tougher test.
That said I can see England losing to Croatia and I anticipate howls of joy from the frozen north…
There can be upsets in any football match but England is a class above Croatia.
11th in FIFA rankings is not too shabby , usual England complacency before heading home perhaps.
I don't think that Croatia is quite the team they were when Suker was playing up front and Modric was in his pomp but they are still a useful side. I have also yet to be persuaded that Tuchel has any idea how to get the best out of his talented squad. But in Kane they have probably the best forward in the world at the moment and I suspect that will be enough.
One of my pals sent me a social media image last night made up of flags wishing every country in the WC good luck. In the middle was the cross of St George and on that it said "not you". I really don't get that and will be cheering England on on Wednesday, just as I would support any other British team, unless they were playing Scotland, of course.
"Home Office limits ‘one in, one out’ migrant deal with France
Officials fear the border scheme to effectively trade small boat arrivals for asylum seekers brings in ‘young men more likely to engage in criminal activity’"
I was in Farnham last night for a meal with my wife.
I don't want to profile and at the same time two noisy motorbikes turned up suddenly on the high street outside our restaurant with two middle-eastern looking men on each of them, wearing bandanas covering their faces, and they had dark hair. They looked angry.
They did an about turn in the middle of the high-street, made a massive noise with their engines, and then revved off again. All my red flags were going off and I was ready to whip my wife out the restaurant on the high street, and head off out and away from there.
In the event nothing (that I could see) happened but it was all very weird and discomforting. Whole thing was about 8 seconds long and a flash in a pan. But where had they come from suddenly? Why were they there? What were they doing?
Maybe they just wanted a ride.
A free ride ?
That’s our strength and what makes Britain what it is. They’re the people who built this country
It's telling that I've been hesitant to report it to the police, and "hoping" other had instead.
They would ask me to describe the individuals involved, and give me own details, and there's too much risk of me being labelled a racist.
What was their offence? For a loud noise to be a Statutory Nuisance, it needs to be persistent and regular, rather than a one-off event. Or was it them looking angry? Or something else?
Cut welfare and spend the money on defence instead. No need for tax rises
So let's look into where the so-called peace dividend went. What did governments spend more on after the 1990s as they spent less on defence? Because we will have to spend less on these things if we want to increase spending on defence without raising taxes.
Turns out the big increases are health then pensioner welfare and non pensioner welfare.
So when Badenoch and others glibly talk about funding defence through welfare cuts do they actually want to reduce people's access to healthcare and do a triple unlock to reduce pensions?
That debt interest is absolutely catastrophic. A gross act of fiscal vandalism to have incurred all that debt during COVID without coming up with a way to pay for it. I'm afraid national crises like pandemic and war need eye-watering taxes on high earners (like me) and we'll be paying the price for decaes to come because we ignored that reality.
My headache is also catastrophic.
Sorry about the headache. Hope it improves fast.
On the debt, surely it has ever been thus.
We didn't pay off our WW2 debt until 2006 We didn't pay off our WW1 debt until even later. 2015.
Strange to think that by winning the war we ended up in a far worse place economically than Germany who lost. They had all their debt written off at the London Conference in 1950.
Cut welfare and spend the money on defence instead. No need for tax rises
So let's look into where the so-called peace dividend went. What did governments spend more on after the 1990s as they spent less on defence? Because we will have to spend less on these things if we want to increase spending on defence without raising taxes.
Turns out the big increases are health then pensioner welfare and non pensioner welfare.
So when Badenoch and others glibly talk about funding defence through welfare cuts do they actually want to reduce people's access to healthcare and do a triple unlock to reduce pensions?
That debt interest is absolutely catastrophic. A gross act of fiscal vandalism to have incurred all that debt during COVID without coming up with a way to pay for it. I'm afraid national crises like pandemic and war need eye-watering taxes on high earners (like me) and we'll be paying the price for decaes to come because we ignored that reality.
My headache is also catastrophic.
Indeed. But debt interest isn't something you can adjust spending on unlike defence, health and welfare.
I am open to spending more on defence but I think there needs to be a proper debate leading to a consensus on how it gets paid for. And the military needs to get its house in order. It's unreasonable to expect us to pay more when they aren't managing their current (large) budget properly.
"Home Office limits ‘one in, one out’ migrant deal with France
Officials fear the border scheme to effectively trade small boat arrivals for asylum seekers brings in ‘young men more likely to engage in criminal activity’"
I was in Farnham last night for a meal with my wife.
I don't want to profile and at the same time two noisy motorbikes turned up suddenly on the high street outside our restaurant with two middle-eastern looking men on each of them, wearing bandanas covering their faces, and they had dark hair. They looked angry.
They did an about turn in the middle of the high-street, made a massive noise with their engines, and then revved off again. All my red flags were going off and I was ready to whip my wife out the restaurant on the high street, and head off out and away from there.
In the event nothing (that I could see) happened but it was all very weird and discomforting. Whole thing was about 8 seconds long and a flash in a pan. But where had they come from suddenly? Why were they there? What were they doing?
Maybe they just wanted a ride.
A free ride ?
That’s our strength and what makes Britain what it is. They’re the people who built this country
It's telling that I've been hesitant to report it to the police, and "hoping" other had instead.
They would ask me to describe the individuals involved, and give me own details, and there's too much risk of me being labelled a racist.
What was their offence? For a loud noise to be a Statutory Nuisance, it needs to be persistent and regular, rather than a one-off event. Or was it them looking angry? Or something else?
I'm impressed by the spidey sense that can discern middle-eastern-ness beneath helmets and face-coveriing bandanas.
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
The obvious reason for spending money on CCS is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
CCS is heavily promoted by oil producers so they can continue to pump out their product while getting others to pay for the clean up. It has little to do with Net Zero.
It was also was a project of the previous Conservative government. Miliband hasn't done anything beyond not actually shutting it down. I am beginning to think Miliband Derangement Syndrome might really be a thing on here.
I'll add it to my "pet hates to fund defence" log. The CCS system in the UK only costs us significant cash if it works (which it likely won't). Obviously there are some limited up front costs for taxpayers to get things moving, but in the event it's successful it will account for about £0.8 billion a year, or 3% of the proposed increase in defence spending.
A valid criticism of Net Zero policy in the UK is that our interventions make very little difference on global carbon emissions (though that ignores the many other benefits of getting off fossil fuels). CCS is one of the few policies which could have a huge impact, so oddly enough I think it's one which we should support if it looks to be viable.
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
The obvious reason for spending money on CCS is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
CCS is heavily promoted by oil producers so they can continue to pump out their product while getting others to pay for the clean up. It has little to do with Net Zero.
It was also was a project of the previous Conservative government. Miliband hasn't done anything beyond not actually shutting it down. I am beginning to think Miliband Derangement Syndrome might really be a thing on here.
CCS on cement and EfW is nowt to do with hydrocarbon production.
Cut welfare and spend the money on defence instead. No need for tax rises
So let's look into where the so-called peace dividend went. What did governments spend more on after the 1990s as they spent less on defence? Because we will have to spend less on these things if we want to increase spending on defence without raising taxes.
Turns out the big increases are health then pensioner welfare and non pensioner welfare.
So when Badenoch and others glibly talk about funding defence through welfare cuts do they actually want to reduce people's access to healthcare and do a triple unlock to reduce pensions?
That debt interest is absolutely catastrophic. A gross act of fiscal vandalism to have incurred all that debt during COVID without coming up with a way to pay for it. I'm afraid national crises like pandemic and war need eye-watering taxes on high earners (like me) and we'll be paying the price for decaes to come because we ignored that reality.
My headache is also catastrophic.
I take it you managed to stay up for the game.
I did want to get up to watch it but failed.
I did, my partner is on nights so had the opportunity to invite people round without pissing her off. Except for the first 15 minutes it was a grim affair to be honest, Haiti were very good value and with someone decent in the box we would have lost.
Got the pub booked for the next two games, Edinburgh was crackling last night.
Congratulations to Scotland on their win - Haiti had demolished the All Whites in their warm up game which makes me think the Kiwis will struggle against Iran tomorrow (or indeed the morning after).
On the EU, about which I fear we will be hearing plenty this coming week even though for betting types it's the greatest five days of the whole year at Ascot, we simply couldn't go on as we were with our half-hearted, rebate-obsessed membership.
Rather like the Hokey Cokey, ever since Messina, there have only been two coherent positions - our whole selves in or our whole selves out. We COULD have gone in enthusaistically moving to the Euro, Schengen and pushing for deeper and faster political integration.
We could equally have sat on the sidelines, wishing the project well and enjoying some form of free trade agreement.
Incredibly, we did neither.
In fairness we did with the pillars of Maastricht. But then Blair and Brown screwed it up by insisting we had to be at the heart of Europe and we ended up out. Major's solution was complex but really was the answer for the UK.
If memory serves, it wasn't just the UK which came to see the inadequacies of the "three pillars" after 15 years. Those who wanted deeper integration pushed for their removal as part of Lisbon.
Many on here (and elsewhere) have argued we should have had a referendum on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Ireland did and rejected the treaty in the summer of 2008 only for a second referendum, once concessions had been made to Dublin, to prodice a two thirds majority in favour.
Had we also held a referendum, would we have rejected it and what would have happened if we had? I suspect it would have revealed deep splits in both the Labour and Conservative parties which, a year or so before a likely election, would have transformed the election agenda.
There's an interesting counterfactual on that which I must one day develop on alternatehistory.com
I think the problem was that by that point it was very hard to conceive any version of the Lisbon treaty that we would consent to in a referendum. Brown certainly had his doubts which is why he avoided having one.
There was pressure from some countries to waive the opt outs that Maastricht had given but that pressure could have been resisted if our government had not been so out of touch with the views of the population. After all, Sweden has been "under pressure" to adopt the Euro for decades and France has basically been out of Schengen since about 2016.
Freedom of movement was the biggest challenge. Instead of tens of thousands we ended up with nearly 4m Europeans coming here which not only aggravated our housing and infrastructure limitations but also created massive competition for many of the indigenous population reducing both employment opportunities and wages.
Would a successful compromise have been possible? Well, the Cameron effort, which was somewhat half hearted, suggested that it would have been difficult but the powers that be in both the UK and the EU did not believe that people would ever vote to leave and felt able and entitled to override their wishes. The outcome of failing to find a compromise that worked has been fairly suboptimal for both sides. Even although the consequences of Brexit have been grossly overstated (as the series of thread headers on here showed recently) there was still a better way ahead if a compromise could have been found.
We are a European nation faced with similar challenges and sharing similar aspirations to the other nations sharing our continent. Peace, prosperity, democracy, rule of law, social progress.
The European Union, for all its imperfections, is the continent's political project to meet these challenges and aspirations. We were part of it, now we're not.
Forget the stats, all of that economy and immigration stuff, what it really boils down to is a matter of personal psychology. Do you feel good about being in there in the thick of a common endeavour, or do you feel in some way trapped or demeaned by it.
I didn't feel trapped and demeaned but I was certainly wary of the anti-democratic tendencies of the EU and its institutions. I still am, which is why I would like a close but arms length relationship where we cooperate fully on the areas and interests we have in common (such as Ukraine and continental security) but retain freedom of manoeuvre where we don't.
About one thing, Sir Keir is absolutely right. “There are no easy decisions,” he said on Friday. “Whoever is prime minister is going to face the same prevailing winds as I am facing.” A leadership change will not magically produce additional resources for defence – or for anything else for that matter. Sorting out the dangerous mess over security will be at the top of the groaning plate of challenges facing any of the possible successors to Sir Keir. They’ll need to have a solution if they aspire to be an improvement on a Fubar government.
The same challenge also affects every other alternative Government including ones headed by Farage, Badenoch, Polanski and Davey.
It's the first of a series (I suspect) of such crunch issues which challenge how we have jogged on arguably over the last 5-7 years.
Essentially, the question is - IF you think more should be spent on defence, from where does the funding come absent significant economic growth? The options are either to cut spending - "welfare" seems the favoured option but whose welfare and by how much or raise taxes - a hypothecated 2p increase in basic rate tax to fund additional defence?
The problem is the former will be opposed by those who enjoy their welfare and benefits and the latter by those who think they pay too much tax as it is and each will point to the other and day they should pay.
The poor Government is caught in the middle - it has three options, pick a side, anatagonise both sides by doing both or doing neither and hoping, pace Micawber, something will turn up.
What governments have done recently is to find a short-term expedient that will make things look okay in the short-term, but make things even harder to sort out after the next election.
All the bills for the can-kicking of the past are falling due. The only sane way out is to convince the public that there's a tough road ahead, but we can get out of the hole if we're honest about the mistakes made in the past.
It might be quicker and easier to invent a time machine than trying to convince the voters of reality.
We ought to at least give it a decent try.
Agreed, I'll start work on the flux capacitor, do you want to have a go at designing the vessel?
Bags along for the ride. If we do 40 years we can maybe head off that third Thatcher win.
Cut welfare and spend the money on defence instead. No need for tax rises
So let's look into where the so-called peace dividend went. What did governments spend more on after the 1990s as they spent less on defence? Because we will have to spend less on these things if we want to increase spending on defence without raising taxes.
Turns out the big increases are health then pensioner welfare and non pensioner welfare.
So when Badenoch and others glibly talk about funding defence through welfare cuts do they actually want to reduce people's access to healthcare and do a triple unlock to reduce pensions?
That debt interest is absolutely catastrophic. A gross act of fiscal vandalism to have incurred all that debt during COVID without coming up with a way to pay for it. I'm afraid national crises like pandemic and war need eye-watering taxes on high earners (like me) and we'll be paying the price for decaes to come because we ignored that reality.
My headache is also catastrophic.
I take it you managed to stay up for the game.
I did want to get up to watch it but failed.
I did, my partner is on nights so had the opportunity to invite people round without pissing her off. Except for the first 15 minutes it was a grim affair to be honest, Haiti were very good value and with someone decent in the box we would have lost.
Got the pub booked for the next two games, Edinburgh was crackling last night.
I’ll bet.
These tournaments are great for the hospitality industry.
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
The obvious reason for spending money on CCS is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
CCS is heavily promoted by oil producers so they can continue to pump out their product while getting others to pay for the clean up. It has little to do with Net Zero.
It was also was a project of the previous Conservative government. Miliband hasn't done anything beyond not actually shutting it down. I am beginning to think Miliband Derangement Syndrome might really be a thing on here.
I'll add it to my "pet hates to fund defence" log. The CCS system in the UK only costs us significant cash if it works (which it likely won't). Obviously there are some limited up front costs for taxpayers to get things moving, but in the event it's successful it will account for about £0.8 billion a year, or 3% of the proposed increase in defence spending.
A valid criticism of Net Zero policy in the UK is that our interventions make very little difference on global carbon emissions (though that ignores the many other benefits of getting off fossil fuels). CCS is one of the few policies which could have a huge impact, so oddly enough I think it's one which we should support if it looks to be viable.
We would still have to fund the transport and storage networks if the capture plants didn't work.
But of course they will work, as the technology is proven.
Let's see if the cash is forthcoming for Track 1 Expansion capture projects and Track 2 clusters.
I wonder how much of the Kilted Army (if what I hear from Boston is correct) have rooms booked for the second stage of the competition.
Got to get there first… But can do no more than win. Morocco and Brazil are a tougher test.
That said I can see England losing to Croatia and I anticipate howls of joy from the frozen north…
There can be upsets in any football match but England is a class above Croatia.
11th in FIFA rankings is not too shabby , usual England complacency before heading home perhaps.
I don't think that Croatia is quite the team they were when Suker was playing up front and Modric was in his pomp but they are still a useful side. I have also yet to be persuaded that Tuchel has any idea how to get the best out of his talented squad. But in Kane they have probably the best forward in the world at the moment and I suspect that will be enough.
One of my pals sent me a social media image last night made up of flags wishing every country in the WC good luck. In the middle was the cross of St George and on that it said "not you". I really don't get that and will be cheering England on on Wednesday, just as I would support any other British team, unless they were playing Scotland, of course.
I've always found this antipathy really tedious. My divided loyalty comes from the fact that I'm Scottish on my mother's side and English on my father's. I generally do not know who to support when England play Scotland (though the hooligan element among the English support has on occasion inclined me towards Scotland).
Cut welfare and spend the money on defence instead. No need for tax rises
So let's look into where the so-called peace dividend went. What did governments spend more on after the 1990s as they spent less on defence? Because we will have to spend less on these things if we want to increase spending on defence without raising taxes.
Turns out the big increases are health then pensioner welfare and non pensioner welfare.
So when Badenoch and others glibly talk about funding defence through welfare cuts do they actually want to reduce people's access to healthcare and do a triple unlock to reduce pensions?
That debt interest is absolutely catastrophic. A gross act of fiscal vandalism to have incurred all that debt during COVID without coming up with a way to pay for it. I'm afraid national crises like pandemic and war need eye-watering taxes on high earners (like me) and we'll be paying the price for decaes to come because we ignored that reality.
My headache is also catastrophic.
Sorry about the headache. Hope it improves fast.
On the debt, surely it has ever been thus.
We didn't pay off our WW2 debt until 2006 We didn't pay off our WW1 debt until even later. 2015.
Strange to think that by winning the war we ended up in a far worse place economically than Germany who lost. They had all their debt written off at the London Conference in 1950.
There were good reasons for some of the spending during Covid. The restrictions we imposed (rightly or wrongly) threatened the very existence of our economy and the hospitality industry in particular. But the waste was mind blowing and slow to be corrected. The cumulo effect was like a medium sized war and the blithe assumptions we could simply carry on without consequences was delusional. Taxes should have gone up as soon as the crisis was at an end.
"Why do employers think it’s OK to ghost job applicants? Businesses that complain it is hard to recruit the right staff should look at themselves too Robert Shrimsley" (£)
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
The obvious reason for spending money on CCS is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
CCS is heavily promoted by oil producers so they can continue to pump out their product while getting others to pay for the clean up. It has little to do with Net Zero.
It was also was a project of the previous Conservative government. Miliband hasn't done anything beyond not actually shutting it down. I am beginning to think Miliband Derangement Syndrome might really be a thing on here.
Sums the whole government up really. Everyone knows EVs are the future, there are some relatively small changes to infrastructure necessary to make it happen, yet we continue to prostrate ourselves in front of a rent-seeking and intransigent industry more interested in lobbying than innovation.
The UK converted the entire gas grid in 10 years in the 60s. 1,000 miles of motorway took 12 years. Time between the first flight and man on the moon was 66 years. 40% coal to 0% coal electricity generation in 10 years. EVs? Apparently 25 years is too fast.
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
The obvious reason for spending money on CCS is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
CCS is heavily promoted by oil producers so they can continue to pump out their product while getting others to pay for the clean up. It has little to do with Net Zero.
It was also was a project of the previous Conservative government. Miliband hasn't done anything beyond not actually shutting it down. I am beginning to think Miliband Derangement Syndrome might really be a thing on here.
CCS on cement and EfW is nowt to do with hydrocarbon production.
Fair point. I am sort of conflating that BP and others are the ones hoping to benefit from CCS largesse as well as pumping out polluting hydrocarbons.
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
The obvious reason for spending money on CCS is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
CCS is heavily promoted by oil producers so they can continue to pump out their product while getting others to pay for the clean up. It has little to do with Net Zero.
It was also was a project of the previous Conservative government. Miliband hasn't done anything beyond not actually shutting it down. I am beginning to think Miliband Derangement Syndrome might really be a thing on here.
CCS on cement and EfW is nowt to do with hydrocarbon production.
Fair point. I am sort of conflating that BP and others are the ones hoping to benefit from CCS largesse as well as pumping out polluting hydrocarbons.
I wonder how much of the Kilted Army (if what I hear from Boston is correct) have rooms booked for the second stage of the competition.
Got to get there first… But can do no more than win. Morocco and Brazil are a tougher test.
That said I can see England losing to Croatia and I anticipate howls of joy from the frozen north…
There can be upsets in any football match but England is a class above Croatia.
11th in FIFA rankings is not too shabby , usual England complacency before heading home perhaps.
I don't think that Croatia is quite the team they were when Suker was playing up front and Modric was in his pomp but they are still a useful side. I have also yet to be persuaded that Tuchel has any idea how to get the best out of his talented squad. But in Kane they have probably the best forward in the world at the moment and I suspect that will be enough.
One of my pals sent me a social media image last night made up of flags wishing every country in the WC good luck. In the middle was the cross of St George and on that it said "not you". I really don't get that and will be cheering England on on Wednesday, just as I would support any other British team, unless they were playing Scotland, of course.
I've always found this antipathy really tedious. My divided loyalty comes from the fact that I'm Scottish on my mother's side and English on my father's. I generally do not know who to support when England play Scotland (though the hooligan element among the English support has on occasion inclined me towards Scotland).
Totally agree. Its fed by an unhealthy sense of inadequacy. I was born in England but I have never had any doubt that Scotland was my country. I just don't see any reason to hate/despise or resent another part of our country.
"Home Office limits ‘one in, one out’ migrant deal with France
Officials fear the border scheme to effectively trade small boat arrivals for asylum seekers brings in ‘young men more likely to engage in criminal activity’"
I was in Farnham last night for a meal with my wife.
I don't want to profile and at the same time two noisy motorbikes turned up suddenly on the high street outside our restaurant with two middle-eastern looking men on each of them, wearing bandanas covering their faces, and they had dark hair. They looked angry.
They did an about turn in the middle of the high-street, made a massive noise with their engines, and then revved off again. All my red flags were going off and I was ready to whip my wife out the restaurant on the high street, and head off out and away from there.
In the event nothing (that I could see) happened but it was all very weird and discomforting. Whole thing was about 8 seconds long and a flash in a pan. But where had they come from suddenly? Why were they there? What were they doing?
Maybe they just wanted a ride.
A free ride ?
That’s our strength and what makes Britain what it is. They’re the people who built this country
It's telling that I've been hesitant to report it to the police, and "hoping" other had instead.
They would ask me to describe the individuals involved, and give me own details, and there's too much risk of me being labelled a racist.
What was their offence? For a loud noise to be a Statutory Nuisance, it needs to be persistent and regular, rather than a one-off event. Or was it them looking angry? Or something else?
I'm impressed by the spidey sense that can discern middle-eastern-ness beneath helmets and face-coveriing bandanas.
I want to know what the bikes were.
I've sold my Bimota and might get a Z H2 for the lolz.
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
The obvious reason for spending money on CCS is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
CCS is heavily promoted by oil producers so they can continue to pump out their product while getting others to pay for the clean up. It has little to do with Net Zero.
It was also was a project of the previous Conservative government. Miliband hasn't done anything beyond not actually shutting it down. I am beginning to think Miliband Derangement Syndrome might really be a thing on here.
I'll add it to my "pet hates to fund defence" log. The CCS system in the UK only costs us significant cash if it works (which it likely won't). Obviously there are some limited up front costs for taxpayers to get things moving, but in the event it's successful it will account for about £0.8 billion a year, or 3% of the proposed increase in defence spending.
A valid criticism of Net Zero policy in the UK is that our interventions make very little difference on global carbon emissions (though that ignores the many other benefits of getting off fossil fuels). CCS is one of the few policies which could have a huge impact, so oddly enough I think it's one which we should support if it looks to be viable.
We would still have to fund the transport and storage networks if the capture plants didn't work.
But of course they will work, as the technology is proven.
Let's see if the cash is forthcoming for Track 1 Expansion capture projects and Track 2 clusters.
As envisaged, it seems a waste of carbon. CO2 is (as we know) plant food, and reducing the quotient of it from the air from what I imagine are already low levels compared with the recent past will make crops, trees etc. grow with less vigour. That would be economic harm heaped on economic harm.
On the other hand, part of that CCS budget (I assume a small part) would be going to dressing fields with rock dust (which I keep banging on about) so I hope when it gets cancelled the baby doesn't get thrown out with the bathwater.
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
The obvious reason for spending money on CCS is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
CCS is heavily promoted by oil producers so they can continue to pump out their product while getting others to pay for the clean up. It has little to do with Net Zero.
It was also was a project of the previous Conservative government. Miliband hasn't done anything beyond not actually shutting it down. I am beginning to think Miliband Derangement Syndrome might really be a thing on here.
Sums the whole government up really. Everyone knows EVs are the future, there are some relatively small changes to infrastructure necessary to make it happen, yet we continue to prostrate ourselves in front of a rent-seeking and intransigent industry more interested in lobbying than innovation.
The UK converted the entire gas grid in 10 years in the 60s. 1,000 miles of motorway took 12 years. Time between the first flight and man on the moon was 66 years. 40% coal to 0% coal electricity generation in 10 years. EVs? Apparently 25 years is too fast.
The frightening thing is that this is the most environmentally friendly and climate conscious Government in our history
The Tories, Reform and Restore want us to drill baby drill, frack baby frack and probably open up the coal mines.
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
The obvious reason for spending money on CCS is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
CCS is heavily promoted by oil producers so they can continue to pump out their product while getting others to pay for the clean up. It has little to do with Net Zero.
It was also was a project of the previous Conservative government. Miliband hasn't done anything beyond not actually shutting it down. I am beginning to think Miliband Derangement Syndrome might really be a thing on here.
CCS on cement and EfW is nowt to do with hydrocarbon production.
Fair point. I am sort of conflating that BP and others are the ones hoping to benefit from CCS largesse as well as pumping out polluting hydrocarbons.
Not a fan of Carbon capture because I think cutting fossil fuel use is a better way forward but we should pursue the technology for use as Hydrogen storage.
Use surplus Renewable electricity to generate Hydrogen and store it under the sea and use it as an alternative to Natural Gas to generate when Renewables are low or when the gas price is higher.
If we really want energy security we need more storage; our European peers Germany, France &Italy all have storage for just over 2 months, we don’t even have two weeks!
Oh and as a pro renewables pro Independence SNP member I know that currently Scotland has no gas storage at all!
BBC going big on the shadow tanker and ar brave lads.
Frank Gardner: ‘the English Channel, or La Manche as the French call it’
That’s why he gets the big bucks I suppose.
Is this it now then? War with Russia. Has it come before we're ready?
The two HMS warships used in the operation were HMS Sutherland (commissioned 4th July 1997) and HMS Ledbury (commissioned 11th June 1981).
They're a good example of how salami-slicing the defence budget has made it so inefficient. You cut the budget for new ships, and instead rely on extending the life of your existing ships. You spend loads of money on refits, and life-extension repairs for your existing ships, during which time they aren't available for use. You end up spending more money than you planned, to have a less capable ship, mostly not available for service.
And now it means you need to build ships twice as fast to catch up on the ship-building you deferred, but the shipyards are closed and the skilled staff were let go, so to recreate the ship-building capacity you will need to pay £££.
When you've had a period of sweating your existing assets to destruction it's always going to cost lots to make good the situation. You can't do that just by making the existing budget more "efficient". One of the reasons the budget became inefficient was that it wasn't big enough.
The Japanese model is the one to follow.
Japan has a massive commercial shipbuilding industry and so has the industrial capacity and skills. The ONLY ships that are built in the UK are incredibly expensive and massively delayed warships. So the Japan model isn't remotely feasible.
Building the hulls somewhere cheap and then adding all the high value systems like weapons and sensors in the UK would make a lot of sense and be a lot more effective. It'll never happen though as the UK now has three surface ship yards that are politically impossible to close down and so will have to be kept building incredibly expensive and massively delayed warships. We're basically trying to be a Tier 1 warship builder without any commercial shipbuilding to support it which is impossible.
That's another good point.
"Back in the day" we had uber-commercial shipbuilding to smooth the load. And it was normal for yards to do both military and civilian contracts.
It's not the civilian industry - though there's no good reason why we cannot have a civilian shipbuilding sector. Europe is dominant in cruise ships, and superyachts, energy services, perhaps ice protected ships, and other sectors. That's more a national attitude and culture here in the UK - perhaps a downside of being dominated by financial services, which needs feedstock.
Japan has a military shipbuilding heartbeat that is steady for decades, rather than feast and famine. Then if the size of the navy is adjusted, it is done by adjusting the service life rather than destroying the industry - sell it, scrap it, or put it in reserve. Here is the list of in service dates for ships - look at the consistency.
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
The obvious reason for spending money on CCS is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
CCS is heavily promoted by oil producers so they can continue to pump out their product while getting others to pay for the clean up. It has little to do with Net Zero.
It was also was a project of the previous Conservative government. Miliband hasn't done anything beyond not actually shutting it down. I am beginning to think Miliband Derangement Syndrome might really be a thing on here.
CCS on cement and EfW is nowt to do with hydrocarbon production.
Fair point. I am sort of conflating that BP and others are the ones hoping to benefit from CCS largesse as well as pumping out polluting hydrocarbons.
Oil and gas companies are best placed to operate the offshore infrastructure, as it is their bread and butter. Hence, BP and ENI operating the two Track 1 T&S networks.
However, a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) funding model is a world away from the usual risk/reward profile of their operations.
Cut welfare and spend the money on defence instead. No need for tax rises
So let's look into where the so-called peace dividend went. What did governments spend more on after the 1990s as they spent less on defence? Because we will have to spend less on these things if we want to increase spending on defence without raising taxes.
Turns out the big increases are health then pensioner welfare and non pensioner welfare.
So when Badenoch and others glibly talk about funding defence through welfare cuts do they actually want to reduce people's access to healthcare and do a triple unlock to reduce pensions?
That debt interest is absolutely catastrophic. A gross act of fiscal vandalism to have incurred all that debt during COVID without coming up with a way to pay for it. I'm afraid national crises like pandemic and war need eye-watering taxes on high earners (like me) and we'll be paying the price for decaes to come because we ignored that reality.
My headache is also catastrophic.
Sorry about the headache. Hope it improves fast.
On the debt, surely it has ever been thus.
We didn't pay off our WW2 debt until 2006 We didn't pay off our WW1 debt until even later. 2015.
Strange to think that by winning the war we ended up in a far worse place economically than Germany who lost. They had all their debt written off at the London Conference in 1950.
There were good reasons for some of the spending during Covid. The restrictions we imposed (rightly or wrongly) threatened the very existence of our economy and the hospitality industry in particular. But the waste was mind blowing and slow to be corrected. The cumulo effect was like a medium sized war and the blithe assumptions we could simply carry on without consequences was delusional. Taxes should have gone up as soon as the crisis was at an end.
One key lesson
Never WIN a war that the Yanks are involved in the settlement of.
BBC going big on the shadow tanker and ar brave lads.
Frank Gardner: ‘the English Channel, or La Manche as the French call it’
That’s why he gets the big bucks I suppose.
Is this it now then? War with Russia. Has it come before we're ready?
Multiple counties have been stopping and dealing with the shadow tankers.
They aren’t at war with Russia.
A pretty transparent effort from Starmer to look tough on defence after surrendering to his Chancellor on actually funding the MoD.
Credit where it’s due, that’s one dodgy Russian tanker that won’t be doing much tanking any more - but way too little too late, and almost impeccably timed for nakedly political reasons after SecDef resigned last week.
BBC going big on the shadow tanker and ar brave lads.
Frank Gardner: ‘the English Channel, or La Manche as the French call it’
That’s why he gets the big bucks I suppose.
Is this it now then? War with Russia. Has it come before we're ready?
The two HMS warships used in the operation were HMS Sutherland (commissioned 4th July 1997) and HMS Ledbury (commissioned 11th June 1981).
They're a good example of how salami-slicing the defence budget has made it so inefficient. You cut the budget for new ships, and instead rely on extending the life of your existing ships. You spend loads of money on refits, and life-extension repairs for your existing ships, during which time they aren't available for use. You end up spending more money than you planned, to have a less capable ship, mostly not available for service.
And now it means you need to build ships twice as fast to catch up on the ship-building you deferred, but the shipyards are closed and the skilled staff were let go, so to recreate the ship-building capacity you will need to pay £££.
When you've had a period of sweating your existing assets to destruction it's always going to cost lots to make good the situation. You can't do that just by making the existing budget more "efficient". One of the reasons the budget became inefficient was that it wasn't big enough.
The Japanese model is the one to follow.
Japan has a massive commercial shipbuilding industry and so has the industrial capacity and skills. The ONLY ships that are built in the UK are incredibly expensive and massively delayed warships. So the Japan model isn't remotely feasible.
Building the hulls somewhere cheap and then adding all the high value systems like weapons and sensors in the UK would make a lot of sense and be a lot more effective. It'll never happen though as the UK now has three surface ship yards that are politically impossible to close down and so will have to be kept building incredibly expensive and massively delayed warships. We're basically trying to be a Tier 1 warship builder without any commercial shipbuilding to support it which is impossible.
That's another good point.
"Back in the day" we had uber-commercial shipbuilding to smooth the load. And it was normal for yards to do both military and civilian contracts.
It's not the civilian industry - though there's no good reason why we cannot have a civilian shipbuilding sector. Europe is dominant in cruise ships, and superyachts, energy services, perhaps ice protected ships, and other sectors. That's more a national attitude and culture here in the UK - perhaps a downside of being dominated by financial services, which needs feedstock.
Japan has a military shipbuilding heartbeat that is steady for decades, rather than feast and famine. Then if the size of the navy is adjusted, it is done by adjusting the service life rather than destroying the industry - sell it, scrap it, or put it in reserve. Here is the list of in service dates for ships - look at the consistency.
BBC going big on the shadow tanker and ar brave lads.
Frank Gardner: ‘the English Channel, or La Manche as the French call it’
That’s why he gets the big bucks I suppose.
Is this it now then? War with Russia. Has it come before we're ready?
The two HMS warships used in the operation were HMS Sutherland (commissioned 4th July 1997) and HMS Ledbury (commissioned 11th June 1981).
They're a good example of how salami-slicing the defence budget has made it so inefficient. You cut the budget for new ships, and instead rely on extending the life of your existing ships. You spend loads of money on refits, and life-extension repairs for your existing ships, during which time they aren't available for use. You end up spending more money than you planned, to have a less capable ship, mostly not available for service.
And now it means you need to build ships twice as fast to catch up on the ship-building you deferred, but the shipyards are closed and the skilled staff were let go, so to recreate the ship-building capacity you will need to pay £££.
When you've had a period of sweating your existing assets to destruction it's always going to cost lots to make good the situation. You can't do that just by making the existing budget more "efficient". One of the reasons the budget became inefficient was that it wasn't big enough.
The Japanese model is the one to follow.
Japan has a massive commercial shipbuilding industry and so has the industrial capacity and skills. The ONLY ships that are built in the UK are incredibly expensive and massively delayed warships. So the Japan model isn't remotely feasible.
Building the hulls somewhere cheap and then adding all the high value systems like weapons and sensors in the UK would make a lot of sense and be a lot more effective. It'll never happen though as the UK now has three surface ship yards that are politically impossible to close down and so will have to be kept building incredibly expensive and massively delayed warships. We're basically trying to be a Tier 1 warship builder without any commercial shipbuilding to support it which is impossible.
That's another good point.
"Back in the day" we had uber-commercial shipbuilding to smooth the load. And it was normal for yards to do both military and civilian contracts.
It's not the civilian industry - though there's no good reason why we cannot have a civilian shipbuilding sector. Europe is dominant in cruise ships, and superyachts, energy services, perhaps ice protected ships, and other sectors. That's more a national attitude and culture here in the UK - perhaps a downside of being dominated by financial services, which needs feedstock.
Japan has a military shipbuilding heartbeat that is steady for decades, rather than feast and famine. Then if the size of the navy is adjusted, it is done by adjusting the service life rather than destroying the industry - sell it, scrap it, or put it in reserve. Here is the list of in service dates for ships - look at the consistency.
Even if we were running one frigate / destroyer every 2-3 years at 2 yards, and one submarine every 2 years, it could follow the same principle.
Two words: Energy Prices.
Two more: Ed Miliband.
Unless you think that our manufacturing industry was going along just fine until July 2024, that argument doesn't really work.
Oh the last lot were terrible too - but Miliband has doubled down on everything that was done wrong, and the UK has the most expensive industrial electricity in the developed world as a result.
The correlation between an inverse of energy prices and economic growth, is stronger than any other single indicator. Lower energy prices = more economic growth.
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
The obvious reason for spending money on CCS is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
CCS is heavily promoted by oil producers so they can continue to pump out their product while getting others to pay for the clean up. It has little to do with Net Zero.
It was also was a project of the previous Conservative government. Miliband hasn't done anything beyond not actually shutting it down. I am beginning to think Miliband Derangement Syndrome might really be a thing on here.
Sums the whole government up really. Everyone knows EVs are the future, there are some relatively small changes to infrastructure necessary to make it happen, yet we continue to prostrate ourselves in front of a rent-seeking and intransigent industry more interested in lobbying than innovation.
The UK converted the entire gas grid in 10 years in the 60s. 1,000 miles of motorway took 12 years. Time between the first flight and man on the moon was 66 years. 40% coal to 0% coal electricity generation in 10 years. EVs? Apparently 25 years is too fast.
The frightening thing is that this is the most environmentally friendly and climate conscious Government in our history
The Tories, Reform and Restore want us to drill baby drill, frack baby frack and probably open up the coal mines.
We should be producing our own hydrocarbons. Stopping production does not stop demand.
Congratulations to Scotland on their win - Haiti had demolished the All Whites in their warm up game which makes me think the Kiwis will struggle against Iran tomorrow (or indeed the morning after).
On the EU, about which I fear we will be hearing plenty this coming week even though for betting types it's the greatest five days of the whole year at Ascot, we simply couldn't go on as we were with our half-hearted, rebate-obsessed membership.
Rather like the Hokey Cokey, ever since Messina, there have only been two coherent positions - our whole selves in or our whole selves out. We COULD have gone in enthusaistically moving to the Euro, Schengen and pushing for deeper and faster political integration.
We could equally have sat on the sidelines, wishing the project well and enjoying some form of free trade agreement.
Incredibly, we did neither.
In fairness we did with the pillars of Maastricht. But then Blair and Brown screwed it up by insisting we had to be at the heart of Europe and we ended up out. Major's solution was complex but really was the answer for the UK.
If memory serves, it wasn't just the UK which came to see the inadequacies of the "three pillars" after 15 years. Those who wanted deeper integration pushed for their removal as part of Lisbon.
Many on here (and elsewhere) have argued we should have had a referendum on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Ireland did and rejected the treaty in the summer of 2008 only for a second referendum, once concessions had been made to Dublin, to prodice a two thirds majority in favour.
Had we also held a referendum, would we have rejected it and what would have happened if we had? I suspect it would have revealed deep splits in both the Labour and Conservative parties which, a year or so before a likely election, would have transformed the election agenda.
There's an interesting counterfactual on that which I must one day develop on alternatehistory.com
I think the problem was that by that point it was very hard to conceive any version of the Lisbon treaty that we would consent to in a referendum. Brown certainly had his doubts which is why he avoided having one.
There was pressure from some countries to waive the opt outs that Maastricht had given but that pressure could have been resisted if our government had not been so out of touch with the views of the population. After all, Sweden has been "under pressure" to adopt the Euro for decades and France has basically been out of Schengen since about 2016.
Freedom of movement was the biggest challenge. Instead of tens of thousands we ended up with nearly 4m Europeans coming here which not only aggravated our housing and infrastructure limitations but also created massive competition for many of the indigenous population reducing both employment opportunities and wages.
Would a successful compromise have been possible? Well, the Cameron effort, which was somewhat half hearted, suggested that it would have been difficult but the powers that be in both the UK and the EU did not believe that people would ever vote to leave and felt able and entitled to override their wishes. The outcome of failing to find a compromise that worked has been fairly suboptimal for both sides. Even although the consequences of Brexit have been grossly overstated (as the series of thread headers on here showed recently) there was still a better way ahead if a compromise could have been found.
We are a European nation faced with similar challenges and sharing similar aspirations to the other nations sharing our continent. Peace, prosperity, democracy, rule of law, social progress.
The European Union, for all its imperfections, is the continent's political project to meet these challenges and aspirations. We were part of it, now we're not.
Forget the stats, all of that economy and immigration stuff, what it really boils down to is a matter of personal psychology. Do you feel good about being in there in the thick of a common endeavour, or do you feel in some way trapped or demeaned by it.
I didn't feel trapped and demeaned but I was certainly wary of the anti-democratic tendencies of the EU and its institutions. I still am, which is why I would like a close but arms length relationship where we cooperate fully on the areas and interests we have in common (such as Ukraine and continental security) but retain freedom of manoeuvre where we don't.
Well a certain pooling of sovereignty is integral to the undertaking. For us, for some reason, this rankles more than it does elsewhere. That's essentially why I think we left. "It might be ok for them continentals but we are Britain". There were umpteen reasons for Brexit, of course, it's been done to death, but that imo is the governing sentiment.
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
The obvious reason for spending money on CCS is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
CCS is heavily promoted by oil producers so they can continue to pump out their product while getting others to pay for the clean up. It has little to do with Net Zero.
It was also was a project of the previous Conservative government. Miliband hasn't done anything beyond not actually shutting it down. I am beginning to think Miliband Derangement Syndrome might really be a thing on here.
Sums the whole government up really. Everyone knows EVs are the future, there are some relatively small changes to infrastructure necessary to make it happen, yet we continue to prostrate ourselves in front of a rent-seeking and intransigent industry more interested in lobbying than innovation.
The UK converted the entire gas grid in 10 years in the 60s. 1,000 miles of motorway took 12 years. Time between the first flight and man on the moon was 66 years. 40% coal to 0% coal electricity generation in 10 years. EVs? Apparently 25 years is too fast.
The frightening thing is that this is the most environmentally friendly and climate conscious Government in our history
The Tories, Reform and Restore want us to drill baby drill, frack baby frack and probably open up the coal mines.
Yes. As China has done, who are now lauded as leaders of the transition. Can you point me to any criticism from you on PB of China's energy policy? China has achieved leadership in renewables technologies precisely by using the cheapest and dirtiest energy, and they've done it without a shred of criticism from people who actively applaud a policy of eviscerating the British economy for some spurious notion of 'climate leadership'. Tell me, if you were an up and coming developing nation, whose energy policy would you imitate?
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
The obvious reason for spending money on CCS is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
CCS is heavily promoted by oil producers so they can continue to pump out their product while getting others to pay for the clean up. It has little to do with Net Zero.
It was also was a project of the previous Conservative government. Miliband hasn't done anything beyond not actually shutting it down. I am beginning to think Miliband Derangement Syndrome might really be a thing on here.
CCS on cement and EfW is nowt to do with hydrocarbon production.
Fair point. I am sort of conflating that BP and others are the ones hoping to benefit from CCS largesse as well as pumping out polluting hydrocarbons.
Not a fan of Carbon capture because I think cutting fossil fuel use is a better way forward but we should pursue the technology for use as Hydrogen storage.
Use surplus Renewable electricity to generate Hydrogen and store it under the sea and use it as an alternative to Natural Gas to generate when Renewables are low or when the gas price is higher.
If we really want energy security we need more storage; our European peers Germany, France &Italy all have storage for just over 2 months, we don’t even have two weeks!
Oh and as a pro renewables pro Independence SNP member I know that currently Scotland has no gas storage at all!
Peter.
As noted above CCS is required in sectors other than oil & gas.
Producing "blue" hydrogen from natural gas with CCS is currently a lower cost option than green hydrogen from electrolysis.
BBC going big on the shadow tanker and ar brave lads.
Frank Gardner: ‘the English Channel, or La Manche as the French call it’
That’s why he gets the big bucks I suppose.
Is this it now then? War with Russia. Has it come before we're ready?
The two HMS warships used in the operation were HMS Sutherland (commissioned 4th July 1997) and HMS Ledbury (commissioned 11th June 1981).
They're a good example of how salami-slicing the defence budget has made it so inefficient. You cut the budget for new ships, and instead rely on extending the life of your existing ships. You spend loads of money on refits, and life-extension repairs for your existing ships, during which time they aren't available for use. You end up spending more money than you planned, to have a less capable ship, mostly not available for service.
And now it means you need to build ships twice as fast to catch up on the ship-building you deferred, but the shipyards are closed and the skilled staff were let go, so to recreate the ship-building capacity you will need to pay £££.
When you've had a period of sweating your existing assets to destruction it's always going to cost lots to make good the situation. You can't do that just by making the existing budget more "efficient". One of the reasons the budget became inefficient was that it wasn't big enough.
The Japanese model is the one to follow.
Japan has a massive commercial shipbuilding industry and so has the industrial capacity and skills. The ONLY ships that are built in the UK are incredibly expensive and massively delayed warships. So the Japan model isn't remotely feasible.
Building the hulls somewhere cheap and then adding all the high value systems like weapons and sensors in the UK would make a lot of sense and be a lot more effective. It'll never happen though as the UK now has three surface ship yards that are politically impossible to close down and so will have to be kept building incredibly expensive and massively delayed warships. We're basically trying to be a Tier 1 warship builder without any commercial shipbuilding to support it which is impossible.
That's another good point.
"Back in the day" we had uber-commercial shipbuilding to smooth the load. And it was normal for yards to do both military and civilian contracts.
It's not the civilian industry - though there's no good reason why we cannot have a civilian shipbuilding sector. Europe is dominant in cruise ships, and superyachts, energy services, perhaps ice protected ships, and other sectors. That's more a national attitude and culture here in the UK - perhaps a downside of being dominated by financial services, which needs feedstock.
Japan has a military shipbuilding heartbeat that is steady for decades, rather than feast and famine. Then if the size of the navy is adjusted, it is done by adjusting the service life rather than destroying the industry - sell it, scrap it, or put it in reserve. Here is the list of in service dates for ships - look at the consistency.
BBC going big on the shadow tanker and ar brave lads.
Frank Gardner: ‘the English Channel, or La Manche as the French call it’
That’s why he gets the big bucks I suppose.
Is this it now then? War with Russia. Has it come before we're ready?
Multiple counties have been stopping and dealing with the shadow tankers.
They aren’t at war with Russia.
A pretty transparent effort from Starmer to look tough on defence after surrendering to his Chancellor on actually funding the MoD.
Credit where it’s due, that’s one dodgy Russian tanker that won’t be doing much tanking any more - but way too little too late, and almost impeccably timed for nakedly political reasons after SecDef resigned last week.
The fact that there was a convenient tanker in the Channel waiting to be repelled suggests to me either that Putin is working with Starmer, or that these things are so frequent these days it was just a case of waiting for one to be along like a bus.
BBC going big on the shadow tanker and ar brave lads.
Frank Gardner: ‘the English Channel, or La Manche as the French call it’
That’s why he gets the big bucks I suppose.
Is this it now then? War with Russia. Has it come before we're ready?
The two HMS warships used in the operation were HMS Sutherland (commissioned 4th July 1997) and HMS Ledbury (commissioned 11th June 1981).
They're a good example of how salami-slicing the defence budget has made it so inefficient. You cut the budget for new ships, and instead rely on extending the life of your existing ships. You spend loads of money on refits, and life-extension repairs for your existing ships, during which time they aren't available for use. You end up spending more money than you planned, to have a less capable ship, mostly not available for service.
And now it means you need to build ships twice as fast to catch up on the ship-building you deferred, but the shipyards are closed and the skilled staff were let go, so to recreate the ship-building capacity you will need to pay £££.
When you've had a period of sweating your existing assets to destruction it's always going to cost lots to make good the situation. You can't do that just by making the existing budget more "efficient". One of the reasons the budget became inefficient was that it wasn't big enough.
The Japanese model is the one to follow.
Japan has a massive commercial shipbuilding industry and so has the industrial capacity and skills. The ONLY ships that are built in the UK are incredibly expensive and massively delayed warships. So the Japan model isn't remotely feasible.
Building the hulls somewhere cheap and then adding all the high value systems like weapons and sensors in the UK would make a lot of sense and be a lot more effective. It'll never happen though as the UK now has three surface ship yards that are politically impossible to close down and so will have to be kept building incredibly expensive and massively delayed warships. We're basically trying to be a Tier 1 warship builder without any commercial shipbuilding to support it which is impossible.
That's another good point.
"Back in the day" we had uber-commercial shipbuilding to smooth the load. And it was normal for yards to do both military and civilian contracts.
It's not the civilian industry - though there's no good reason why we cannot have a civilian shipbuilding sector. Europe is dominant in cruise ships, and superyachts, energy services, perhaps ice protected ships, and other sectors. That's more a national attitude and culture here in the UK - perhaps a downside of being dominated by financial services, which needs feedstock.
Japan has a military shipbuilding heartbeat that is steady for decades, rather than feast and famine. Then if the size of the navy is adjusted, it is done by adjusting the service life rather than destroying the industry - sell it, scrap it, or put it in reserve. Here is the list of in service dates for ships - look at the consistency.
Even if we were running one frigate / destroyer every 2-3 years at 2 yards, and one submarine every 2 years, it could follow the same principle.
Japan runs a significantly larger navy than we do.
Nevertheless, I agree - we should think far more industry-first. We don't get capital spending in this country and bugger about it with it all the time, which kills the supply chain.
All politicians do it. All nonsensically.
We have spent decades allowing or even encouraging the decline of our manufacturing sector (we're far from alone in that, of course). Suddenly everyone is waking up to its fundamental importance, but the way ahead for the UK, with debt at 100% of GDP, and having separated itself from the largest market on its doorstep, isn't very clear.
Britain must grow again - and grow together - so the next generation gets a stake, not just the bill.
We still can.
I am putting forward an agenda for progressive capitalism, as focused on wealth creation as we are on wealth distribution, taking on the vested interests
BBC going big on the shadow tanker and ar brave lads.
Frank Gardner: ‘the English Channel, or La Manche as the French call it’
That’s why he gets the big bucks I suppose.
Is this it now then? War with Russia. Has it come before we're ready?
The two HMS warships used in the operation were HMS Sutherland (commissioned 4th July 1997) and HMS Ledbury (commissioned 11th June 1981).
They're a good example of how salami-slicing the defence budget has made it so inefficient. You cut the budget for new ships, and instead rely on extending the life of your existing ships. You spend loads of money on refits, and life-extension repairs for your existing ships, during which time they aren't available for use. You end up spending more money than you planned, to have a less capable ship, mostly not available for service.
And now it means you need to build ships twice as fast to catch up on the ship-building you deferred, but the shipyards are closed and the skilled staff were let go, so to recreate the ship-building capacity you will need to pay £££.
When you've had a period of sweating your existing assets to destruction it's always going to cost lots to make good the situation. You can't do that just by making the existing budget more "efficient". One of the reasons the budget became inefficient was that it wasn't big enough.
The Japanese model is the one to follow.
Japan has a massive commercial shipbuilding industry and so has the industrial capacity and skills. The ONLY ships that are built in the UK are incredibly expensive and massively delayed warships. So the Japan model isn't remotely feasible.
Building the hulls somewhere cheap and then adding all the high value systems like weapons and sensors in the UK would make a lot of sense and be a lot more effective. It'll never happen though as the UK now has three surface ship yards that are politically impossible to close down and so will have to be kept building incredibly expensive and massively delayed warships. We're basically trying to be a Tier 1 warship builder without any commercial shipbuilding to support it which is impossible.
That's another good point.
"Back in the day" we had uber-commercial shipbuilding to smooth the load. And it was normal for yards to do both military and civilian contracts.
It's not the civilian industry - though there's no good reason why we cannot have a civilian shipbuilding sector. Europe is dominant in cruise ships, and superyachts, energy services, perhaps ice protected ships, and other sectors. That's more a national attitude and culture here in the UK - perhaps a downside of being dominated by financial services, which needs feedstock.
Japan has a military shipbuilding heartbeat that is steady for decades, rather than feast and famine. Then if the size of the navy is adjusted, it is done by adjusting the service life rather than destroying the industry - sell it, scrap it, or put it in reserve. Here is the list of in service dates for ships - look at the consistency.
Even if we were running one frigate / destroyer every 2-3 years at 2 yards, and one submarine every 2 years, it could follow the same principle.
Japan runs a significantly larger navy than we do.
Nevertheless, I agree - we should think far more industry-first. We don't get capital spending in this country and bugger about it with it all the time, which kills the supply chain.
All politicians do it. All nonsensically.
We have spent decades allowing or even encouraging the decline of our manufacturing sector (we're far from alone in that, of course). Suddenly everyone is waking up to its fundamental importance, but the way ahead for the UK, with debt at 100% of GDP, and having separated itself from the largest market on its doorstep, isn't very clear.
I wonder how much of the Kilted Army (if what I hear from Boston is correct) have rooms booked for the second stage of the competition.
Got to get there first… But can do no more than win. Morocco and Brazil are a tougher test.
That said I can see England losing to Croatia and I anticipate howls of joy from the frozen north…
There can be upsets in any football match but England is a class above Croatia.
11th in FIFA rankings is not too shabby , usual England complacency before heading home perhaps.
I don't think that Croatia is quite the team they were when Suker was playing up front and Modric was in his pomp but they are still a useful side. I have also yet to be persuaded that Tuchel has any idea how to get the best out of his talented squad. But in Kane they have probably the best forward in the world at the moment and I suspect that will be enough.
One of my pals sent me a social media image last night made up of flags wishing every country in the WC good luck. In the middle was the cross of St George and on that it said "not you". I really don't get that and will be cheering England on on Wednesday, just as I would support any other British team, unless they were playing Scotland, of course.
I've always found this antipathy really tedious. My divided loyalty comes from the fact that I'm Scottish on my mother's side and English on my father's. I generally do not know who to support when England play Scotland (though the hooligan element among the English support has on occasion inclined me towards Scotland).
Totally agree. Its fed by an unhealthy sense of inadequacy. I was born in England but I have never had any doubt that Scotland was my country. I just don't see any reason to hate/despise or resent another part of our country.
I think you’ve led a fairly sheltered life if you haven’t notice deep and longstanding shithousery between rival supporters of national football teams all the way down to piddling little leagues. On an associated note I see that after buying Shankland, the Rangers are in the process of snaffling Derek McInnes. It’s great that they’re raising their ambitions from finishing third in the league to second!
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
The obvious reason for spending money on CCS is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
CCS is heavily promoted by oil producers so they can continue to pump out their product while getting others to pay for the clean up. It has little to do with Net Zero.
It was also was a project of the previous Conservative government. Miliband hasn't done anything beyond not actually shutting it down. I am beginning to think Miliband Derangement Syndrome might really be a thing on here.
CCS on cement and EfW is nowt to do with hydrocarbon production.
Fair point. I am sort of conflating that BP and others are the ones hoping to benefit from CCS largesse as well as pumping out polluting hydrocarbons.
Not a fan of Carbon capture because I think cutting fossil fuel use is a better way forward but we should pursue the technology for use as Hydrogen storage.
Use surplus Renewable electricity to generate Hydrogen and store it under the sea and use it as an alternative to Natural Gas to generate when Renewables are low or when the gas price is higher.
If we really want energy security we need more storage; our European peers Germany, France &Italy all have storage for just over 2 months, we don’t even have two weeks!
Oh and as a pro renewables pro Independence SNP member I know that currently Scotland has no gas storage at all!
Peter.
As noted above CCS is required in sectors other than oil & gas.
Producing "blue" hydrogen from natural gas with CCS is currently a lower cost option than green hydrogen from electrolysis.
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
The obvious reason for spending money on CCS is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
CCS is heavily promoted by oil producers so they can continue to pump out their product while getting others to pay for the clean up. It has little to do with Net Zero.
It was also was a project of the previous Conservative government. Miliband hasn't done anything beyond not actually shutting it down. I am beginning to think Miliband Derangement Syndrome might really be a thing on here.
CCS on cement and EfW is nowt to do with hydrocarbon production.
Fair point. I am sort of conflating that BP and others are the ones hoping to benefit from CCS largesse as well as pumping out polluting hydrocarbons.
Not a fan of Carbon capture because I think cutting fossil fuel use is a better way forward but we should pursue the technology for use as Hydrogen storage.
Use surplus Renewable electricity to generate Hydrogen and store it under the sea and use it as an alternative to Natural Gas to generate when Renewables are low or when the gas price is higher.
If we really want energy security we need more storage; our European peers Germany, France &Italy all have storage for just over 2 months, we don’t even have two weeks!
Oh and as a pro renewables pro Independence SNP member I know that currently Scotland has no gas storage at all!
Peter.
As noted above CCS is required in sectors other than oil & gas.
Producing "blue" hydrogen from natural gas with CCS is currently a lower cost option than green hydrogen from electrolysis.
True but it still relies on Natural Gas which within twenty years we may well even if we expand production be mostly importing. Secondly over time the price of hydrolysis is going to fall and I’d rather used surplus electricity than pay people not to produce it!
Cut welfare and spend the money on defence instead. No need for tax rises
So let's look into where the so-called peace dividend went. What did governments spend more on after the 1990s as they spent less on defence? Because we will have to spend less on these things if we want to increase spending on defence without raising taxes.
Turns out the big increases are health then pensioner welfare and non pensioner welfare.
So when Badenoch and others glibly talk about funding defence through welfare cuts do they actually want to reduce people's access to healthcare and do a triple unlock to reduce pensions?
That debt interest is absolutely catastrophic. A gross act of fiscal vandalism to have incurred all that debt during COVID without coming up with a way to pay for it. I'm afraid national crises like pandemic and war need eye-watering taxes on high earners (like me) and we'll be paying the price for decaes to come because we ignored that reality.
My headache is also catastrophic.
Sorry about the headache. Hope it improves fast.
On the debt, surely it has ever been thus.
We didn't pay off our WW2 debt until 2006 We didn't pay off our WW1 debt until even later. 2015.
Strange to think that by winning the war we ended up in a far worse place economically than Germany who lost. They had all their debt written off at the London Conference in 1950.
There were good reasons for some of the spending during Covid. The restrictions we imposed (rightly or wrongly) threatened the very existence of our economy and the hospitality industry in particular. But the waste was mind blowing and slow to be corrected. The cumulo effect was like a medium sized war and the blithe assumptions we could simply carry on without consequences was delusional. Taxes should have gone up as soon as the crisis was at an end.
It's the point of that Macmillan 'family silver' speech, that we've spent decades ignoring.
The conservative thing to do is to grow the endowment, leave a better inheritance for the next generation. By all means enjoy the revenue it throws off, but don't eat into the capital unless a real emergency comes up.
Since at least the Lawson years, our governments have done the opposite, and we have demanded it as voters. And the consequences of that are now queuing up.
There's one other MacMillan soundbite that everyone knows. But the end of the paragraph is also important;
Let us be frank about it: most of our people have never had it so good. Go around the country, go to the industrial towns, go to the farms, and you'll see a state of prosperity such as we have never had in my lifetime- nor indeed ever in the history of this country. What is beginning to worry some of us is 'Is it too good to be true?' or perhaps I should say 'Is it too good to last?'
At least some of the Thatcher-Major-Blair era was too good to be true. And it didn't, couldn't last. And the resulting grumpiness is a large part of why we are where we are.
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
The obvious reason for spending money on CCS is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
CCS is heavily promoted by oil producers so they can continue to pump out their product while getting others to pay for the clean up. It has little to do with Net Zero.
It was also was a project of the previous Conservative government. Miliband hasn't done anything beyond not actually shutting it down. I am beginning to think Miliband Derangement Syndrome might really be a thing on here.
Sums the whole government up really. Everyone knows EVs are the future, there are some relatively small changes to infrastructure necessary to make it happen, yet we continue to prostrate ourselves in front of a rent-seeking and intransigent industry more interested in lobbying than innovation.
The UK converted the entire gas grid in 10 years in the 60s. 1,000 miles of motorway took 12 years. Time between the first flight and man on the moon was 66 years. 40% coal to 0% coal electricity generation in 10 years. EVs? Apparently 25 years is too fast.
If we had binned the pointless and expensive boondoggle of CCS, and split the money between grid upgrades, and subsidies to the lower cost battery and EV manufacturers to set up here, we might be a lot further along.
My most traumatic moment in film probably came from Bambi. I was in a cinema in Singapore that was full of young kids (I would have been 7 I think). There was the shot and then a stunned silence in what had been quite a noisy cinema. Someone down the front gave a sob and within minutes the whole place was full of howling kids as the slower ones worked out what had happened.
Bambi is an 18-rated film for small kids.
Ha. I remember the Animals of Farthing Wood. Makes Game of Thrones look soft.
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
Good morning
Miliband should have been moved and Starmer open the North Sea
Also
Amusing to see @Brixian59 meet his match with @malcolmg giving him both barrels
Both barrels my ass.
Opening up the North Sea to do what?
Stasrt drilling depleted areas to sell n the Global Market and probably recoup less than drilling costs
Take up to 5 years to produce anything meaningful from new fields
Continue to support Russian Gas by slowing down our Renewable progress and small Nuclear progress.
If course we all know why The Right are desperate to keep Russian Gas Contracts, funding Reform, funding Tories via Putin Oligarchs.
Both barrels my ass... More like a pea shooter.
The Poles are melting, the Sea is Rising, the Deserts are increasing, heat records broken monthly around the glide, flash flooding...
Milliband is a Visionary, the dinosaurs can only sling pebbles
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
Good morning
Miliband should have been moved and Starmer open the North Sea
Also
Amusing to see @Brixian59 meet his match with @malcolmg giving him both barrels
Both barrels my ass.
Opening up the North Sea to do what?
Stasrt drilling depleted areas to sell n the Global Market and probably recoup less than drilling costs
Take up to 5 years to produce anything meaningful from new fields
Continue to support Russian Gas by slowing down our Renewable progress and small Nuclear progress.
If course we all know why The Right are desperate to keep Russian Gas Contracts, funding Reform, funding Tories via Putin Oligarchs.
Both barrels my ass... More like a pea shooter.
The Poles are melting, the Sea is Rising, the Deserts are increasing, heat records broken monthly around the glide, flash flooding...
Milliband is a Visionary, the dinosaurs can only sling pebbles
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
Good morning
Miliband should have been moved and Starmer open the North Sea
Also
Amusing to see @Brixian59 meet his match with @malcolmg giving him both barrels
Both barrels my ass.
Opening up the North Sea to do what?
Stasrt drilling depleted areas to sell n the Global Market and probably recoup less than drilling costs
Take up to 5 years to produce anything meaningful from new fields
Continue to support Russian Gas by slowing down our Renewable progress and small Nuclear progress.
If course we all know why The Right are desperate to keep Russian Gas Contracts, funding Reform, funding Tories via Putin Oligarchs.
Both barrels my ass... More like a pea shooter.
The Poles are melting, the Sea is Rising, the Deserts are increasing, heat records broken monthly around the glide, flash flooding...
Milliband is a Visionary, the dinosaurs can only sling pebbles
few will appreciate how grimly funny it is that this judge both issued a gagging order so that the filton 4 could not explain their motivation to the jury, and then also sentenced them according to a specific intent provision requiring them to have had a specific motivation https://x.com/ergo_praxis/status/2066049704811491467
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
Regarding Milliband's carbon footprint, you seem to be implying that his ministerial flying is essential to his Ministerial duties, and should therefore be exempt from scrutiny. That is patently absurd. For comparison, we know after six months in the role, Milliband's department had spent £62,712 on international travel - Claire Coutinho spent £6,155 during her first six months in the same job. That is 10 times the amount. And Coutinho wasn't making some sort of 'anti Net Zero' point - the Tories policy was pro Net Zero at that time.
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
Claire Couthino was not doing her job properly. Miliband attands and is a ket global leader and respected for that in Eco matters. Thats the difference, some one who understands the calamity bearing down on us and wanting to do all he can to stop it and on the other hand a vaccuous minister who just wants to car and title!
A "global leader" who:
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness. * insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons. *Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
The obvious reason for spending money on CCS is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
CCS is heavily promoted by oil producers so they can continue to pump out their product while getting others to pay for the clean up. It has little to do with Net Zero.
It was also was a project of the previous Conservative government. Miliband hasn't done anything beyond not actually shutting it down. I am beginning to think Miliband Derangement Syndrome might really be a thing on here.
Sums the whole government up really. Everyone knows EVs are the future, there are some relatively small changes to infrastructure necessary to make it happen, yet we continue to prostrate ourselves in front of a rent-seeking and intransigent industry more interested in lobbying than innovation.
The UK converted the entire gas grid in 10 years in the 60s. 1,000 miles of motorway took 12 years. Time between the first flight and man on the moon was 66 years. 40% coal to 0% coal electricity generation in 10 years. EVs? Apparently 25 years is too fast.
It’s simple protectionism as the European car makers are so far behind the Chinese.
Comments
Hitchcock rather than Lean, with Miklós Rózsa in place of Rachmaninov ?
And imagine being stuck for life with Trevor Howard.
PS: Is it any wonder the world laughs at UK with that dumb cluck representing us on the world stage.
* inflicts self harm on his own country by stopping the utilisation of resources from the North Sea, complete and utter madness.
* insists on spending billions on carbon capture for no obvious reasons.
*Seems to welcome the closure of manufacturing in the UK because it moves us closer to net zero, even when we then have to import the same things we used to make for ourselves.
What he absolutely isn't is any kind of leader for the UK national interest.
Not aimed at Lucky Guy rather the clown that thinks Milliband is not an absolute moron
So let's look into where the so-called peace dividend went. What did governments spend more on after the 1990s as they spent less on defence? Because we will have to spend less on these things if we want to increase spending on defence without raising taxes.
Turns out the big increases are health then pensioner welfare and non pensioner welfare.
So when Badenoch and others glibly talk about funding defence through welfare cuts do they actually want to reduce people's access to healthcare and do a triple unlock to reduce pensions?
https://bsky.app/profile/ruthcurtice.bsky.social/post/3mo3ziif3g22r
It is deeply embarrassing that this has taken so long and is such a token effort.
That’s our strength and what makes Britain what it is. They’re the people who built this country
Miliband should have been moved and Starmer open the North Sea
Also
Amusing to see @Brixian59 meet his match with @malcolmg giving him both barrels
Have a shot of the cask strength turnip juice.
Torcuil Crichton, the MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, told The Telegraph he had been attempting to ignore the English activist group Protect the Wild, but that he could no longer keep silent over its campaign.
He said: “When it gets so far, it is time to speak.”
Mr Crichton said: “It’s a kind of neo-colonialism – people thinking that they know better than people who have lived with the environment and with the bird life and sea life for centuries.”"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/14/labour-mp-animal-rights-activist-scottish-hunting-ban/
Is there a “y” in the name of the day?
Those cleverer than me have determined that CCS is one of the pieces of the jigsaw we need to utilise to achieve Net Zero.
Without CCS, industries such as cement and EfW cannot decarbonise. However, with CCS the latter can become net negative and offset other sectors.
One thing I will say is that sticking CCS on the back end of a CCGT with a 50% load factor is a daft idea.
"Why do employers think it’s OK to ghost job applicants?
Businesses that complain it is hard to recruit the right staff should look at themselves too
Robert Shrimsley" (£)
https://www.ft.com/content/2af109d0-56b7-429d-b792-a6635ceeed67
It was a time when people collected gulls eggs, indeed most birds eggs, a practice which thankfully is now illegal
They would ask me to describe the individuals involved, and give me own details, and there's too much risk of me being labelled a racist.
It was also was a project of the previous Conservative government. Miliband hasn't done anything beyond not actually shutting it down. I am beginning to think Miliband Derangement Syndrome might really be a thing on here.
Nevertheless, I agree - we should think far more industry-first. We don't get capital spending in this country and bugger about it with it all the time, which kills the supply chain.
All politicians do it. All nonsensically.
The European Union, for all its imperfections, is the continent's political project to meet these challenges and aspirations. We were part of it, now we're not.
Forget the stats, all of that economy and immigration stuff, what it really boils down to is a matter of personal psychology. Do you feel good about being in there in the thick of a common endeavour, or do you feel in some way trapped or demeaned by it.
Poor sod must be wracked with feelings of guilt.
We’ve not moved on from this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-54695580
My headache is also catastrophic.
My experience is it is always recruitment agencies and it has gone back many many years.
Recruitment consultants are the scum of the earth. Oh. Got a great job you’d be perfect for. Just need two references. Fuck off.
When I’ve been recruiting we’ve always given feed back to the recruitment consultant on the candidates they put forward.
I did want to get up to watch it but failed.
Hey Jamil, what are you rebelling against?
Whaddaya got?
https://www.cityam.com/stamer-overrules-miliband-on-electric-car-sales-targets-as-he-looks-to-appease-automotive-industry/
One of my pals sent me a social media image last night made up of flags wishing every country in the WC good luck. In the middle was the cross of St George and on that it said "not you". I really don't get that and will be cheering England on on Wednesday, just as I would support any other British team, unless they were playing Scotland, of course.
For a loud noise to be a Statutory Nuisance, it needs to be persistent and regular, rather than a one-off event.
Or was it them looking angry?
Or something else?
On the debt, surely it has ever been thus.
We didn't pay off our WW2 debt until 2006
We didn't pay off our WW1 debt until even later. 2015.
Strange to think that by winning the war we ended up in a far worse place economically than Germany who lost. They had all their debt written off at the London Conference in 1950.
I am open to spending more on defence but I think there needs to be a proper debate leading to a consensus on how it gets paid for. And the military needs to get its house in order. It's unreasonable to expect us to pay more when they aren't managing their current (large) budget properly.
A valid criticism of Net Zero policy in the UK is that our interventions make very little difference on global carbon emissions (though that ignores the many other benefits of getting off fossil fuels). CCS is one of the few policies which could have a huge impact, so oddly enough I think it's one which we should support if it looks to be viable.
Got the pub booked for the next two games, Edinburgh was crackling last night.
These tournaments are great for the hospitality industry.
But of course they will work, as the technology is proven.
Let's see if the cash is forthcoming for Track 1 Expansion capture projects and Track 2 clusters.
Time for a new model.
The UK converted the entire gas grid in 10 years in the 60s. 1,000 miles of motorway took 12 years. Time between the first flight and man on the moon was 66 years. 40% coal to 0% coal electricity generation in 10 years. EVs? Apparently 25 years is too fast.
I've sold my Bimota and might get a Z H2 for the lolz.
On the other hand, part of that CCS budget (I assume a small part) would be going to dressing fields with rock dust (which I keep banging on about) so I hope when it gets cancelled the baby doesn't get thrown out with the bathwater.
The Tories, Reform and Restore want us to drill baby drill, frack baby frack and probably open up the coal mines.
Use surplus Renewable electricity to generate Hydrogen and store it under the sea and use it as an alternative to Natural Gas to generate when Renewables are low or when the gas price is higher.
If we really want energy security we need more storage; our European peers Germany, France &Italy all have storage for just over 2 months, we don’t even have two weeks!
Oh and as a pro renewables pro Independence SNP member I know that currently Scotland has no gas storage at all!
Peter.
Two more: Ed Miliband.
However, a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) funding model is a world away from the usual risk/reward profile of their operations.
Never WIN a war that the Yanks are involved in the settlement of.
Sometimes you just gotta hand it to him...
The correlation between an inverse of energy prices and economic growth, is stronger than any other single indicator. Lower energy prices = more economic growth.
Producing "blue" hydrogen from natural gas with CCS is currently a lower cost option than green hydrogen from electrolysis.
Suddenly everyone is waking up to its fundamental importance, but the way ahead for the UK, with debt at 100% of GDP, and having separated itself from the largest market on its doorstep, isn't very clear.
Britain must grow again - and grow together - so the next generation gets a stake, not just the bill.
We still can.
I am putting forward an agenda for progressive capitalism, as focused on wealth creation as we are on wealth distribution, taking on the vested interests
On an associated note I see that after buying Shankland, the Rangers are in the process of snaffling Derek McInnes. It’s great that they’re raising their ambitions from finishing third in the league to second!
Peter.
The conservative thing to do is to grow the endowment, leave a better inheritance for the next generation. By all means enjoy the revenue it throws off, but don't eat into the capital unless a real emergency comes up.
Since at least the Lawson years, our governments have done the opposite, and we have demanded it as voters. And the consequences of that are now queuing up.
There's one other MacMillan soundbite that everyone knows. But the end of the paragraph is also important;
Let us be frank about it: most of our people have never had it so good. Go around the country, go to the industrial towns, go to the farms, and you'll see a state of prosperity such as we have never had in my lifetime- nor indeed ever in the history of this country. What is beginning to worry some of us is 'Is it too good to be true?' or perhaps I should say 'Is it too good to last?'
At least some of the Thatcher-Major-Blair era was too good to be true. And it didn't, couldn't last. And the resulting grumpiness is a large part of why we are where we are.
(shudders)
Opening up the North Sea to do what?
Stasrt drilling depleted areas to sell n the Global Market and probably recoup less than drilling costs
Take up to 5 years to produce anything meaningful from new fields
Continue to support Russian Gas by slowing down our Renewable progress and small Nuclear progress.
If course we all know why The Right are desperate to keep Russian Gas Contracts, funding Reform, funding Tories via Putin Oligarchs.
Both barrels my ass... More like a pea shooter.
The Poles are melting, the Sea is Rising, the Deserts are increasing, heat records broken monthly around the glide, flash flooding...
Milliband is a Visionary, the dinosaurs can only sling pebbles
Opening up the North Sea to do what?
Stasrt drilling depleted areas to sell n the Global Market and probably recoup less than drilling costs
Take up to 5 years to produce anything meaningful from new fields
Continue to support Russian Gas by slowing down our Renewable progress and small Nuclear progress.
If course we all know why The Right are desperate to keep Russian Gas Contracts, funding Reform, funding Tories via Putin Oligarchs.
Both barrels my ass... More like a pea shooter.
The Poles are melting, the Sea is Rising, the Deserts are increasing, heat records broken monthly around the glide, flash flooding...
Milliband is a Visionary, the dinosaurs can only sling pebbles
few will appreciate how grimly funny it is that this judge both issued a gagging order so that the filton 4 could not explain their motivation to the jury, and then also sentenced them according to a specific intent provision requiring them to have had a specific motivation
https://x.com/ergo_praxis/status/2066049704811491467
Fuck them. They had plenty of time.