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.
CCS is pennies compared to the £50 billion we spent on fossil fuel support schemes during the Ukraine invasion. That would have have bought 30 million home EV charging points (or about 10 million on-street points).
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.
Fuck them. They had plenty of time.
Piss off. How is banning something a bit slower 'protectionism' - it's the exact opposite.
Because it’s protecting the EU car makers from the Chinese because the EU manufacturers have been rather slow to adapt.
"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.
Golly, a supercharger!
What bike would a budding terrorist use? Not something noisy and attention seeking, perhaps a C90 with a basket in front for all their terrorist bits and pieces.
"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" (£)
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
I sympathise with the judge who has a problem. he has to act according to law, whatever his personal views. The defendants clearly don't think the law should apply to them.
There is a middle position: The government is wrong to extend terrorism to obviously non terrorist acts; and the defendants are wrong to try to get off a criminal charge by running a defence about motivation which in law isn't one.
The judge was right to stop them trying to do so, and is bound by law in the sentencing process to take motive into account. Motivation goes to mitigation/aggravation of an offence, not guilt.
Extending our traditional freedoms to protest to mean including breaking the law in serious ways a is a dangerous step, with fascistic overtones.
Finally, if the judge has got it wrong they can appeal.
"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.
Golly, a supercharger!
What bike would a budding terrorist use? Not something noisy and attention seeking, perhaps a C90 with a basket in front for all their terrorist bits and pieces.
Probably a Surron. A C90 could lead to premature shaheed status.
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 thin a better explanation than ignoring or encouraging is that we left it to the Markets. Thatcher started in though I don’t think she expected where it would fully lead, and Blair triangulating on to the Tories continued it.
Let Capital flow freely without the dead hand of the state. Get the highest return at lowest risk.
If you can make more buying and selling existing houses or renting them than building new ones that’s what you do.
If you can make a higher rate of return by buying and selling shares in a company than investing in it then you do.
If you can make more, more quickly breaking it up than building it that’s what you do.
If you can make a deal to sell an acorn to Apple or Google for more than you invested before you need to put in more, you do it.
If you make money doing deals you do as many big deals as you can and the debt involved afterwards is their problem.
If your share option is based on price you keep the dividend up rather than invest.
Then….. You get rich by accumulating wealth, not actually creating it.
As to the Country… who gives a…..
We used to make and sell goods, now we shuffle shares!
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 think a better explanation than ignoring or encouraging is that we left it to the Markets.
Thatcher started in though I don’t think she expected where it would fully lead, and Blair triangulating on to the Tories continued it.
Let Capital flow freely without the dead hand of the state. Get the highest return at lowest risk.
If you can make more buying and selling existing houses or renting them than building new ones that’s what you do.
If you can make a higher rate of return by buying and selling shares in a company than investing in it then you do.
If you can make more, more quickly breaking it up than building it that’s what you do.
If you can make a deal to sell an acorn to Apple or Google for more than you invested before you need to put in more, you do it.
If you make money doing deals you do as many big deals as you can and the debt involved afterwards is their problem.
If your share option is based on price you keep the dividend up rather than invest.
Then….. You get rich by accumulating wealth, not actually creating it.
As to the Country… who gives a…..
We used to make and sell goods, now we shuffle shares!
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.
On debt interest, one to watch will be the USA.
Trump's budgets commit the USA to a Government deficit of around 6% of GDP for a decade, from a base where the debt is already at 120% of GDP now, resulting in debt at 140% of GDP by 2030 (Reuters numbers for debt levels).
That could be exacerbated by Japan's interest rates rising again after decades at effectively zero, so Japanese financial bodies invest in US Govt securities instead. These will now be able to be repatriated at a much lower reduction in yield.
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.
You're not wrong about Freedom of Movement and that in turn did so much to inflame the broader immigation debate.
The thing I don't understand is why people thought FoM would be anything other than what it was - people have always gone to where the money is, whether it's agricultural workers heading to the factories in the Industrial Revolution or relatively poor Poles, Latvians and Estonia and all looking at the wealth of Germany, the Netherlands and the UK and thinking they wanted a bit of it.
Of course, you get the plumbers and the chippies but you also get the organised criminals who can make a lot more from the wealthy West of Europe than they can in the East.
Either way, it has been one of the big policy disasters for the last thirty years and influences the political debate to this day.
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.
It is only due to English media David, they cannot just control the jingoism and boasting that they are going to win every tournament. However whilst they should beat Croatia, they are no mugs and will need to be a lot better than their last performance. They rarely play as a real team , perhaps this time they will not have so many prima donna's and change things but I suspect quarter finals at very very best
"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 would you be reporting to the police? Two guys revved their engines loudly? Is that a crime?
I thought your post was a parody initially, it’s so ridiculous.
Comments
NEW THREAD
What bike would a budding terrorist use? Not something noisy and attention seeking, perhaps a C90 with a basket in front for all their terrorist bits and pieces.
There is a middle position: The government is wrong to extend terrorism to obviously non terrorist acts; and the defendants are wrong to try to get off a criminal charge by running a defence about motivation which in law isn't one.
The judge was right to stop them trying to do so, and is bound by law in the sentencing process to take motive into account. Motivation goes to mitigation/aggravation of an offence, not guilt.
Extending our traditional freedoms to protest to mean including breaking the law in serious ways a is a dangerous step, with fascistic overtones.
Finally, if the judge has got it wrong they can appeal.
Let Capital flow freely without the dead hand of the state. Get the highest return at lowest risk.
If you can make more buying and selling existing houses or renting them than building new ones that’s what you do.
If you can make a higher rate of return by buying and selling shares in a company than investing in it then you do.
If you can make more, more quickly breaking it up than building it that’s what you do.
If you can make a deal to sell an acorn to Apple or Google for more than you invested before you need to put in more, you do it.
If you make money doing deals you do as many big deals as you can and the debt involved afterwards is their problem.
If your share option is based on price you keep the dividend up rather than invest.
Then….. You get rich by accumulating wealth, not actually creating it.
As to the Country… who gives a…..
We used to make and sell goods, now we shuffle shares!
Peter.
Thatcher started in though I don’t think she expected where it would fully lead, and Blair triangulating on to the Tories continued it.
Let Capital flow freely without the dead hand of the state. Get the highest return at lowest risk.
If you can make more buying and selling existing houses or renting them than building new ones that’s what you do.
If you can make a higher rate of return by buying and selling shares in a company than investing in it then you do.
If you can make more, more quickly breaking it up than building it that’s what you do.
If you can make a deal to sell an acorn to Apple or Google for more than you invested before you need to put in more, you do it.
If you make money doing deals you do as many big deals as you can and the debt involved afterwards is their problem.
If your share option is based on price you keep the dividend up rather than invest.
Then….. You get rich by accumulating wealth, not actually creating it.
As to the Country… who gives a…..
We used to make and sell goods, now we shuffle shares!
Peter.
Trump's budgets commit the USA to a Government deficit of around 6% of GDP for a decade, from a base where the debt is already at 120% of GDP now, resulting in debt at 140% of GDP by 2030 (Reuters numbers for debt levels).
That could be exacerbated by Japan's interest rates rising again after decades at effectively zero, so Japanese financial bodies invest in US Govt securities instead. These will now be able to be repatriated at a much lower reduction in yield.
https://weather.metoffice.gov.uk/warnings-and-advice/seasonal-advice/pollen-forecast
The thing I don't understand is why people thought FoM would be anything other than what it was - people have always gone to where the money is, whether it's agricultural workers heading to the factories in the Industrial Revolution or relatively poor Poles, Latvians and Estonia and all looking at the wealth of Germany, the Netherlands and the UK and thinking they wanted a bit of it.
Of course, you get the plumbers and the chippies but you also get the organised criminals who can make a lot more from the wealthy West of Europe than they can in the East.
Either way, it has been one of the big policy disasters for the last thirty years and influences the political debate to this day.