Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I must admit, I enjoy @Sandpit's regular updates on Ukraine and the unplanned fires in Russian.
But his perspective on the US, which I have more independent knowledgeable on that Ukraine, makes me mistrust the reliability of his output elsewhere.
Trump is a truly awful human being and almost as bad a President. And that's putting things moderately.
Those defending him are the deranged ones.
I welcome diversity of opinion here and welcome Sandpit’s comments
It was a shame he left after not being pure enough on Ukraine, in spite having a personal investment in the issue, by that moron @JosiasJessop
Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I must admit, I enjoy @Sandpit's regular updates on Ukraine and the unplanned fires in Russian.
But his perspective on the US, which I have more independent knowledgeable on that Ukraine, makes me mistrust the reliability of his output elsewhere.
Trump is a truly awful human being and almost as bad a President. And that's putting things moderately.
Those defending him are the deranged ones.
I welcome diversity of opinion here and welcome Sandpit’s comments
It was a shame he left after not being pure enough on Ukraine, in spite having a personal investment in the issue, by that moron @JosiasJessop
Sadiq Khan's attempt to stop London residents from installing air conditioning is probably the closest thing for a thousand years to King Cnut trying to hold back the waves (even if the latter isn't historically accurate, lol).
According to Khan's plan launched 2 days ago there is no bar on AC when more than passive measures are needed. It also recommends AC for Hospitals and Care settings etc.
"The Well-Adapted UK report from the Climate Change Committee (the independent advisory group to government) sets clear, costed targets for reducing heat-health impacts. Passive methods for cooling (e.g., external shading) will minimise energy demand and increase resilience; but air conditioning will also be needed for vulnerable settings such as health and care. To reach safe and comfortable temperatures across other settings, there may be cases where air conditioning is needed in combination with passive measures."
No other hot country "debates" the merits of air conditioning, they just get on with it.
Other countries do also emphasise passive measures, notably trees and shading. Paris, Singapore, Chicago for example all require passive measures such as tree planting in order to provide shade, as well as a more pleasant ambience.
In any case AC is not banned by Khan, indeed he wants it in high risk places such as hospitals and care homes.
Also by far the most cost-effective measure you can make.
But we can all see where this is going - a contrived culture war where people pretend the world is black and white. Where encouraging cycling becomes “the war on cars”, where insulating homes properly is some sort of green conspiracy against energy consumption, and where planting street trees is all about “banning AC”.
Under the London Plan, air conditioning is strongly discouraged for new developments, which gives councils a reason to refuse planning permission for those that include it. Therefore developers do not include it and there is an effective ban.
This is the same as dredging, which isn't banned but tied up with so much red tape it no longer happens, and building new reservoirs, which has been de facto banned for decades. The reason behind all these things is the same. Rivers where the silt is not managed flood when there's a lot of rain. Water systems with no storage run out of water quickly when there's a sustained dry period. Buildings with no air conditioning make life uncomfortable when the weather is unusually hot. The whole thing is designed to pitch people into crisis after crisis that will soften them up to give ever more of their freedom and their money to making it stop.
The last part of course is to gaslight the public by saying these things are not banned and that objecting to the not bans is engaging in a 'culture war'. So you can basically sweat in your house and like it, or be labelled a Faragist deplorable.
And yet air conditioning is permitted development - so I’m not 100% what you are saying is accurate as of March 2025
New aircon a retrofit on existing houses is permitted development. You can even get tax rebates.
New built flats are very difficult to get planning for, if they use air conditioning.
The reason for this, is that you have to prove the job can’t be done by “natural ventilation”. In one recent planning application, the issue of cooling the flats in 30 degree weather was brought up. The planners responded that this was so rare as to not to be a plausible reason.
Khan isn’t in charge of building regulations in England, incidently.
Sadiq Khan's attempt to stop London residents from installing air conditioning is probably the closest thing for a thousand years to King Cnut trying to hold back the waves (even if the latter isn't historically accurate, lol).
According to Khan's plan launched 2 days ago there is no bar on AC when more than passive measures are needed. It also recommends AC for Hospitals and Care settings etc.
"The Well-Adapted UK report from the Climate Change Committee (the independent advisory group to government) sets clear, costed targets for reducing heat-health impacts. Passive methods for cooling (e.g., external shading) will minimise energy demand and increase resilience; but air conditioning will also be needed for vulnerable settings such as health and care. To reach safe and comfortable temperatures across other settings, there may be cases where air conditioning is needed in combination with passive measures."
No other hot country "debates" the merits of air conditioning, they just get on with it.
Other countries do also emphasise passive measures, notably trees and shading. Paris, Singapore, Chicago for example all require passive measures such as tree planting in order to provide shade, as well as a more pleasant ambience.
In any case AC is not banned by Khan, indeed he wants it in high risk places such as hospitals and care homes.
Also by far the most cost-effective measure you can make.
But we can all see where this is going - a contrived culture war where people pretend the world is black and white. Where encouraging cycling becomes “the war on cars”, where insulating homes properly is some sort of green conspiracy against energy consumption, and where planting street trees is all about “banning AC”.
Under the London Plan, air conditioning is strongly discouraged for new developments, which gives councils a reason to refuse planning permission for those that include it. Therefore developers do not include it and there is an effective ban.
This is the same as dredging, which isn't banned but tied up with so much red tape it no longer happens, and building new reservoirs, which has been de facto banned for decades. The reason behind all these things is the same. Rivers where the silt is not managed flood when there's a lot of rain. Water systems with no storage run out of water quickly when there's a sustained dry period. Buildings with no air conditioning make life uncomfortable when the weather is unusually hot. The whole thing is designed to pitch people into crisis after crisis that will soften them up to give ever more of their freedom and their money to making it stop.
The last part of course is to gaslight the public by saying these things are not banned and that objecting to the not bans is engaging in a 'culture war'. So you can basically sweat in your house and like it, or be labelled a Faragist deplorable.
And yet air conditioning is permitted development - so I’m not 100% what you are saying is accurate as of March 2025
New aircon a retrofit on existing houses is permitted development. You can even get tax rebates.
New built flats are very difficult to get planning for, if they use air conditioning.
The reason for this, is that you have to prove the job can’t be done by “natural ventilation”. In one recent planning application, the issue of cooling the flats in 30 degree weather was brought up. The planners responded that this was so rare as to not to be a plausible reason.
Khan isn’t in charge of building regulations in England, incidently.
Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I must admit, I enjoy @Sandpit's regular updates on Ukraine and the unplanned fires in Russian.
But his perspective on the US, which I have more independent knowledgeable on that Ukraine, makes me mistrust the reliability of his output elsewhere.
Trump is a truly awful human being and almost as bad a President. And that's putting things moderately.
Those defending him are the deranged ones.
I welcome diversity of opinion here and welcome Sandpit’s comments
It was a shame he left after not being pure enough on Ukraine, in spite having a personal investment in the issue, by that moron @JosiasJessop
Sadiq Khan's attempt to stop London residents from installing air conditioning is probably the closest thing for a thousand years to King Cnut trying to hold back the waves (even if the latter isn't historically accurate, lol).
According to Khan's plan launched 2 days ago there is no bar on AC when more than passive measures are needed. It also recommends AC for Hospitals and Care settings etc.
"The Well-Adapted UK report from the Climate Change Committee (the independent advisory group to government) sets clear, costed targets for reducing heat-health impacts. Passive methods for cooling (e.g., external shading) will minimise energy demand and increase resilience; but air conditioning will also be needed for vulnerable settings such as health and care. To reach safe and comfortable temperatures across other settings, there may be cases where air conditioning is needed in combination with passive measures."
No other hot country "debates" the merits of air conditioning, they just get on with it.
Other countries do also emphasise passive measures, notably trees and shading. Paris, Singapore, Chicago for example all require passive measures such as tree planting in order to provide shade, as well as a more pleasant ambience.
In any case AC is not banned by Khan, indeed he wants it in high risk places such as hospitals and care homes.
Also by far the most cost-effective measure you can make.
But we can all see where this is going - a contrived culture war where people pretend the world is black and white. Where encouraging cycling becomes “the war on cars”, where insulating homes properly is some sort of green conspiracy against energy consumption, and where planting street trees is all about “banning AC”.
Under the London Plan, air conditioning is strongly discouraged for new developments, which gives councils a reason to refuse planning permission for those that include it. Therefore developers do not include it and there is an effective ban.
This is the same as dredging, which isn't banned but tied up with so much red tape it no longer happens, and building new reservoirs, which has been de facto banned for decades. The reason behind all these things is the same. Rivers where the silt is not managed flood when there's a lot of rain. Water systems with no storage run out of water quickly when there's a sustained dry period. Buildings with no air conditioning make life uncomfortable when the weather is unusually hot. The whole thing is designed to pitch people into crisis after crisis that will soften them up to give ever more of their freedom and their money to making it stop.
The last part of course is to gaslight the public by saying these things are not banned and that objecting to the not bans is engaging in a 'culture war'. So you can basically sweat in your house and like it, or be labelled a Faragist deplorable.
Unless the planners put an explicit planning condition on:'No air con', it makes not a jot of difference. No one need specify air con in a planning app and not specifying it doesn't prevent you installing it.
It's actually Building Control guidance which is the issue. As updated in June 2022 Part L and Part O make it tricky to install air con in a new build. Not totally impossible but tricky.
The Conservative Party's campaign to overturn what they call a "de facto ban" on air conditioning in new homes is therefore somewhat hypocritical.
Sadiq Khan's attempt to stop London residents from installing air conditioning is probably the closest thing for a thousand years to King Cnut trying to hold back the waves (even if the latter isn't historically accurate, lol).
According to Khan's plan launched 2 days ago there is no bar on AC when more than passive measures are needed. It also recommends AC for Hospitals and Care settings etc.
"The Well-Adapted UK report from the Climate Change Committee (the independent advisory group to government) sets clear, costed targets for reducing heat-health impacts. Passive methods for cooling (e.g., external shading) will minimise energy demand and increase resilience; but air conditioning will also be needed for vulnerable settings such as health and care. To reach safe and comfortable temperatures across other settings, there may be cases where air conditioning is needed in combination with passive measures."
No other hot country "debates" the merits of air conditioning, they just get on with it.
Other countries do also emphasise passive measures, notably trees and shading. Paris, Singapore, Chicago for example all require passive measures such as tree planting in order to provide shade, as well as a more pleasant ambience.
In any case AC is not banned by Khan, indeed he wants it in high risk places such as hospitals and care homes.
Also by far the most cost-effective measure you can make.
But we can all see where this is going - a contrived culture war where people pretend the world is black and white. Where encouraging cycling becomes “the war on cars”, where insulating homes properly is some sort of green conspiracy against energy consumption, and where planting street trees is all about “banning AC”.
Under the London Plan, air conditioning is strongly discouraged for new developments, which gives councils a reason to refuse planning permission for those that include it. Therefore developers do not include it and there is an effective ban.
This is the same as dredging, which isn't banned but tied up with so much red tape it no longer happens, and building new reservoirs, which has been de facto banned for decades. The reason behind all these things is the same. Rivers where the silt is not managed flood when there's a lot of rain. Water systems with no storage run out of water quickly when there's a sustained dry period. Buildings with no air conditioning make life uncomfortable when the weather is unusually hot. The whole thing is designed to pitch people into crisis after crisis that will soften them up to give ever more of their freedom and their money to making it stop.
The last part of course is to gaslight the public by saying these things are not banned and that objecting to the not bans is engaging in a 'culture war'. So you can basically sweat in your house and like it, or be labelled a Faragist deplorable.
And yet air conditioning is permitted development - so I’m not 100% what you are saying is accurate as of March 2025
Permitted development for existing properties, maybe.
But there is no such thing as permitted development for new builds. All new builds need permission, absurdly, rather than having permitted development standards.
So if its frowned upon by those giving permission [I don't know] then that could be a deterrent to installation even if other standards say it is permitted.
Retrofitting is always harder than designing it in the first time.
Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I’m sure other people don’t need you to tell them what to do.
Are you saying everything Sandpit lists there is incorrect ?
I honestly think the fragile flowers here would be far happier if this was a group where everyone had similar opinions and the disagreements were minor.
Like the twats below who meet for a meal on The Guardians ‘dining across the divide’. Sadly they’ll never meet Mohammed Emwazi.
Some who’s left wing, someone who’s a little more left wing
Yeah. I am. At the very least exaggerated. It is utterly insane to say any of the evils of Saddam Hussain’s Iraq happened because of Iran. Or indeed the war that toppled him. And anyone who describes Jan 6 as a “protest” needs to be ignored as a matter of principle.
Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I must admit, I enjoy @Sandpit's regular updates on Ukraine and the unplanned fires in Russian.
But his perspective on the US, which I have more independent knowledgeable on that Ukraine, makes me mistrust the reliability of his output elsewhere.
Trump is a truly awful human being and almost as bad a President. And that's putting things moderately.
Those defending him are the deranged ones.
I welcome diversity of opinion here and welcome Sandpit’s comments
It was a shame he left after not being pure enough on Ukraine, in spite having a personal investment in the issue, by that moron @JosiasJessop
Why are you tagging JJ with that?
What’s it got to do with you ?
Since when am I answerable to you ?
I'm genuinely interested. Wouldn't ask otherwise.
Fair enough. I misunderstood. I presumed your comment was antagonistic.
Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I’m sure other people don’t need you to tell them what to do.
Are you saying everything Sandpit lists there is incorrect ?
I honestly think the fragile flowers here would be far happier if this was a group where everyone had similar opinions and the disagreements were minor.
Like the twats below who meet for a meal on The Guardians ‘dining across the divide’. Sadly they’ll never meet Mohammed Emwazi.
Some who’s left wing, someone who’s a little more left wing
Yeah. I am. At the very least exaggerated. It is utterly insane to say any of the evils of Saddam Hussain’s Iraq happened because of Iran. Or indeed the war that toppled him. And anyone who describes Jan 6 as a “protest” needs to be ignored as a matter of principle.
If you went along would you just stay and eat the free meal or nip to the loo and then do a runner
Sadiq Khan's attempt to stop London residents from installing air conditioning is probably the closest thing for a thousand years to King Cnut trying to hold back the waves (even if the latter isn't historically accurate, lol).
According to Khan's plan launched 2 days ago there is no bar on AC when more than passive measures are needed. It also recommends AC for Hospitals and Care settings etc.
"The Well-Adapted UK report from the Climate Change Committee (the independent advisory group to government) sets clear, costed targets for reducing heat-health impacts. Passive methods for cooling (e.g., external shading) will minimise energy demand and increase resilience; but air conditioning will also be needed for vulnerable settings such as health and care. To reach safe and comfortable temperatures across other settings, there may be cases where air conditioning is needed in combination with passive measures."
No other hot country "debates" the merits of air conditioning, they just get on with it.
Other countries do also emphasise passive measures, notably trees and shading. Paris, Singapore, Chicago for example all require passive measures such as tree planting in order to provide shade, as well as a more pleasant ambience.
In any case AC is not banned by Khan, indeed he wants it in high risk places such as hospitals and care homes.
Also by far the most cost-effective measure you can make.
But we can all see where this is going - a contrived culture war where people pretend the world is black and white. Where encouraging cycling becomes “the war on cars”, where insulating homes properly is some sort of green conspiracy against energy consumption, and where planting street trees is all about “banning AC”.
Under the London Plan, air conditioning is strongly discouraged for new developments, which gives councils a reason to refuse planning permission for those that include it. Therefore developers do not include it and there is an effective ban.
This is the same as dredging, which isn't banned but tied up with so much red tape it no longer happens, and building new reservoirs, which has been de facto banned for decades. The reason behind all these things is the same. Rivers where the silt is not managed flood when there's a lot of rain. Water systems with no storage run out of water quickly when there's a sustained dry period. Buildings with no air conditioning make life uncomfortable when the weather is unusually hot. The whole thing is designed to pitch people into crisis after crisis that will soften them up to give ever more of their freedom and their money to making it stop.
The last part of course is to gaslight the public by saying these things are not banned and that objecting to the not bans is engaging in a 'culture war'. So you can basically sweat in your house and like it, or be labelled a Faragist deplorable.
And yet air conditioning is permitted development - so I’m not 100% what you are saying is accurate as of March 2025
New aircon a retrofit on existing houses is permitted development. You can even get tax rebates.
New built flats are very difficult to get planning for, if they use air conditioning.
The reason for this, is that you have to prove the job can’t be done by “natural ventilation”. In one recent planning application, the issue of cooling the flats in 30 degree weather was brought up. The planners responded that this was so rare as to not to be a plausible reason.
Khan isn’t in charge of building regulations in England, incidently.
I still think this is Building Regs part L and part O, not planning. Our planning permission did not mention how the house would be heated or cooled. It did, to be fair, show an Air Source Heat Pump on the appropriate elevation but not for example the locations of our ventilation vents.
It doesn't pass the risk/reward test imo. Burnham has 3 years as PM with a big majority. It's a dream. And there's every chance of making it 7 or 8 years if things work out. An early election, if he loses it, throws all that away. The upside (of winning it) doesn't compete. He might do it, of course he might, but I'd be very very surprised.
Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I must admit, I enjoy @Sandpit's regular updates on Ukraine and the unplanned fires in Russian.
But his perspective on the US, which I have more independent knowledgeable on that Ukraine, makes me mistrust the reliability of his output elsewhere.
Trump is a truly awful human being and almost as bad a President. And that's putting things moderately.
Those defending him are the deranged ones.
I welcome diversity of opinion here and welcome Sandpit’s comments
It was a shame he left after not being pure enough on Ukraine, in spite having a personal investment in the issue, by that moron @JosiasJessop
Why are you tagging JJ with that?
What’s it got to do with you ?
Since when am I answerable to you ?
I'm genuinely interested. Wouldn't ask otherwise.
Fair enough. I misunderstood. I presumed your comment was antagonistic.
Sadiq Khan's attempt to stop London residents from installing air conditioning is probably the closest thing for a thousand years to King Cnut trying to hold back the waves (even if the latter isn't historically accurate, lol).
According to Khan's plan launched 2 days ago there is no bar on AC when more than passive measures are needed. It also recommends AC for Hospitals and Care settings etc.
"The Well-Adapted UK report from the Climate Change Committee (the independent advisory group to government) sets clear, costed targets for reducing heat-health impacts. Passive methods for cooling (e.g., external shading) will minimise energy demand and increase resilience; but air conditioning will also be needed for vulnerable settings such as health and care. To reach safe and comfortable temperatures across other settings, there may be cases where air conditioning is needed in combination with passive measures."
No other hot country "debates" the merits of air conditioning, they just get on with it.
Other countries do also emphasise passive measures, notably trees and shading. Paris, Singapore, Chicago for example all require passive measures such as tree planting in order to provide shade, as well as a more pleasant ambience.
In any case AC is not banned by Khan, indeed he wants it in high risk places such as hospitals and care homes.
Also by far the most cost-effective measure you can make.
But we can all see where this is going - a contrived culture war where people pretend the world is black and white. Where encouraging cycling becomes “the war on cars”, where insulating homes properly is some sort of green conspiracy against energy consumption, and where planting street trees is all about “banning AC”.
Under the London Plan, air conditioning is strongly discouraged for new developments, which gives councils a reason to refuse planning permission for those that include it. Therefore developers do not include it and there is an effective ban.
This is the same as dredging, which isn't banned but tied up with so much red tape it no longer happens, and building new reservoirs, which has been de facto banned for decades. The reason behind all these things is the same. Rivers where the silt is not managed flood when there's a lot of rain. Water systems with no storage run out of water quickly when there's a sustained dry period. Buildings with no air conditioning make life uncomfortable when the weather is unusually hot. The whole thing is designed to pitch people into crisis after crisis that will soften them up to give ever more of their freedom and their money to making it stop.
The last part of course is to gaslight the public by saying these things are not banned and that objecting to the not bans is engaging in a 'culture war'. So you can basically sweat in your house and like it, or be labelled a Faragist deplorable.
Unless the planners put an explicit planning condition on:'No air con', it makes not a jot of difference. No one need specify air con in a planning app and not specifying it doesn't prevent you installing it.
It's actually Building Control guidance which is the issue. As updated in June 2022 Part L and Part O make it tricky to install air con in a new build. Not totally impossible but tricky.
The Conservative Party's campaign to overturn what they call a "de facto ban" on air conditioning in new homes is therefore somewhat hypocritical.
One of the bizarre things about the current right-wing is that they're obsessed with the Left taking away their freedoms when it is the techbros who are doing that right now with the surveillance infrastructure that they are building.
Sadiq Khan's attempt to stop London residents from installing air conditioning is probably the closest thing for a thousand years to King Cnut trying to hold back the waves (even if the latter isn't historically accurate, lol).
According to Khan's plan launched 2 days ago there is no bar on AC when more than passive measures are needed. It also recommends AC for Hospitals and Care settings etc.
"The Well-Adapted UK report from the Climate Change Committee (the independent advisory group to government) sets clear, costed targets for reducing heat-health impacts. Passive methods for cooling (e.g., external shading) will minimise energy demand and increase resilience; but air conditioning will also be needed for vulnerable settings such as health and care. To reach safe and comfortable temperatures across other settings, there may be cases where air conditioning is needed in combination with passive measures."
No other hot country "debates" the merits of air conditioning, they just get on with it.
Other countries do also emphasise passive measures, notably trees and shading. Paris, Singapore, Chicago for example all require passive measures such as tree planting in order to provide shade, as well as a more pleasant ambience.
In any case AC is not banned by Khan, indeed he wants it in high risk places such as hospitals and care homes.
Also by far the most cost-effective measure you can make.
But we can all see where this is going - a contrived culture war where people pretend the world is black and white. Where encouraging cycling becomes “the war on cars”, where insulating homes properly is some sort of green conspiracy against energy consumption, and where planting street trees is all about “banning AC”.
Under the London Plan, air conditioning is strongly discouraged for new developments, which gives councils a reason to refuse planning permission for those that include it. Therefore developers do not include it and there is an effective ban.
This is the same as dredging, which isn't banned but tied up with so much red tape it no longer happens, and building new reservoirs, which has been de facto banned for decades. The reason behind all these things is the same. Rivers where the silt is not managed flood when there's a lot of rain. Water systems with no storage run out of water quickly when there's a sustained dry period. Buildings with no air conditioning make life uncomfortable when the weather is unusually hot. The whole thing is designed to pitch people into crisis after crisis that will soften them up to give ever more of their freedom and their money to making it stop.
The last part of course is to gaslight the public by saying these things are not banned and that objecting to the not bans is engaging in a 'culture war'. So you can basically sweat in your house and like it, or be labelled a Faragist deplorable.
And yet air conditioning is permitted development - so I’m not 100% what you are saying is accurate as of March 2025
New aircon a retrofit on existing houses is permitted development. You can even get tax rebates.
New built flats are very difficult to get planning for, if they use air conditioning.
The reason for this, is that you have to prove the job can’t be done by “natural ventilation”. In one recent planning application, the issue of cooling the flats in 30 degree weather was brought up. The planners responded that this was so rare as to not to be a plausible reason.
Khan isn’t in charge of building regulations in England, incidently.
I still think this is Building Regs part L and part O, not planning. Our planning permission did not mention how the house would be heated or cooled. It did, to be fair, show an Air Source Heat Pump on the appropriate elevation but not for example the locations of our ventilation vents.
Aircon doesn't have to have an external unit btw.
Oh sure.
And if you go for internal loft units, in a house, there is pretty much nothing they can do.
Though, when my architects included the external units in the plans, I still got a call from the planning types complaining - though admitting there was nothing they could do to stop me.
It’s a cultural issue - air conditioning seems to be seen, by some, as a rich persons luxury and “energy inefficient”.
Am I right in thinking that if Panama beat England by a goal or two they would be in the running to qualify? Is such an outcome unthinkable?
Panama cannot qualify even if they win 8-0.
In this tournament a win over an opponent trumps goal difference within the group if two teams end on the same points ( different if it’s multiple teams in the group or across groups for one of the best 3rd places). As Panama lost to Croatia and have zero points to Croatia’s three, they cannot overtake Croatia. Ghana and England already have four points each too.
Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I must admit, I enjoy @Sandpit's regular updates on Ukraine and the unplanned fires in Russian.
But his perspective on the US, which I have more independent knowledgeable on that Ukraine, makes me mistrust the reliability of his output elsewhere.
Trump is a truly awful human being and almost as bad a President. And that's putting things moderately.
Those defending him are the deranged ones.
I welcome diversity of opinion here and welcome Sandpit’s comments
It was a shame he left after not being pure enough on Ukraine, in spite having a personal investment in the issue, by that moron @JosiasJessop
Why are you tagging JJ with that?
What’s it got to do with you ?
Since when am I answerable to you ?
I'm genuinely interested. Wouldn't ask otherwise.
Fair enough. I misunderstood. I presumed your comment was antagonistic.
I apologise for misjudging it.
No probs. So why did you tag him?
I thought it was common knowledge that JJ went a bit OTT and prompted Sandpit to leave.
It doesn't pass the risk/reward test imo. Burnham has 3 years as PM with a big majority. It's a dream. And there's every chance of making it 7 or 8 years if things work out. An early election, if he loses it, throws all that away. The upside (of winning it) doesn't compete. He might do it, of course he might, but I'd be very very surprised.
To be honest I think King Charles should say no to a dissolution with three years to go and a stonking majority and no economic crisis.
I guess we have got past the point when King might do such a thing if specifically asked but I wonder whether the 'usual channels' might let it be discretely known to Burnham and Parnell that it is not expected that he will be asked this far out.
Sadiq Khan's attempt to stop London residents from installing air conditioning is probably the closest thing for a thousand years to King Cnut trying to hold back the waves (even if the latter isn't historically accurate, lol).
According to Khan's plan launched 2 days ago there is no bar on AC when more than passive measures are needed. It also recommends AC for Hospitals and Care settings etc.
"The Well-Adapted UK report from the Climate Change Committee (the independent advisory group to government) sets clear, costed targets for reducing heat-health impacts. Passive methods for cooling (e.g., external shading) will minimise energy demand and increase resilience; but air conditioning will also be needed for vulnerable settings such as health and care. To reach safe and comfortable temperatures across other settings, there may be cases where air conditioning is needed in combination with passive measures."
No other hot country "debates" the merits of air conditioning, they just get on with it.
Other countries do also emphasise passive measures, notably trees and shading. Paris, Singapore, Chicago for example all require passive measures such as tree planting in order to provide shade, as well as a more pleasant ambience.
In any case AC is not banned by Khan, indeed he wants it in high risk places such as hospitals and care homes.
Also by far the most cost-effective measure you can make.
But we can all see where this is going - a contrived culture war where people pretend the world is black and white. Where encouraging cycling becomes “the war on cars”, where insulating homes properly is some sort of green conspiracy against energy consumption, and where planting street trees is all about “banning AC”.
Under the London Plan, air conditioning is strongly discouraged for new developments, which gives councils a reason to refuse planning permission for those that include it. Therefore developers do not include it and there is an effective ban.
This is the same as dredging, which isn't banned but tied up with so much red tape it no longer happens, and building new reservoirs, which has been de facto banned for decades. The reason behind all these things is the same. Rivers where the silt is not managed flood when there's a lot of rain. Water systems with no storage run out of water quickly when there's a sustained dry period. Buildings with no air conditioning make life uncomfortable when the weather is unusually hot. The whole thing is designed to pitch people into crisis after crisis that will soften them up to give ever more of their freedom and their money to making it stop.
The last part of course is to gaslight the public by saying these things are not banned and that objecting to the not bans is engaging in a 'culture war'. So you can basically sweat in your house and like it, or be labelled a Faragist deplorable.
Unless the planners put an explicit planning condition on:'No air con', it makes not a jot of difference. No one need specify air con in a planning app and not specifying it doesn't prevent you installing it.
It's actually Building Control guidance which is the issue. As updated in June 2022 Part L and Part O make it tricky to install air con in a new build. Not totally impossible but tricky.
The Conservative Party's campaign to overturn what they call a "de facto ban" on air conditioning in new homes is therefore somewhat hypocritical.
One of the bizarre things about the current right-wing is that they're obsessed with the Left taking away their freedoms when it is the techbros who are doing that right now with the surveillance infrastructure that they are building.
What freedoms are being taken away by the surveillance infrastructure?
Most people rather like criminals being caught on CCTV and brought to justice, for instance.
Sadiq Khan's attempt to stop London residents from installing air conditioning is probably the closest thing for a thousand years to King Cnut trying to hold back the waves (even if the latter isn't historically accurate, lol).
According to Khan's plan launched 2 days ago there is no bar on AC when more than passive measures are needed. It also recommends AC for Hospitals and Care settings etc.
"The Well-Adapted UK report from the Climate Change Committee (the independent advisory group to government) sets clear, costed targets for reducing heat-health impacts. Passive methods for cooling (e.g., external shading) will minimise energy demand and increase resilience; but air conditioning will also be needed for vulnerable settings such as health and care. To reach safe and comfortable temperatures across other settings, there may be cases where air conditioning is needed in combination with passive measures."
No other hot country "debates" the merits of air conditioning, they just get on with it.
Other countries do also emphasise passive measures, notably trees and shading. Paris, Singapore, Chicago for example all require passive measures such as tree planting in order to provide shade, as well as a more pleasant ambience.
In any case AC is not banned by Khan, indeed he wants it in high risk places such as hospitals and care homes.
Also by far the most cost-effective measure you can make.
But we can all see where this is going - a contrived culture war where people pretend the world is black and white. Where encouraging cycling becomes “the war on cars”, where insulating homes properly is some sort of green conspiracy against energy consumption, and where planting street trees is all about “banning AC”.
Under the London Plan, air conditioning is strongly discouraged for new developments, which gives councils a reason to refuse planning permission for those that include it. Therefore developers do not include it and there is an effective ban.
This is the same as dredging, which isn't banned but tied up with so much red tape it no longer happens, and building new reservoirs, which has been de facto banned for decades. The reason behind all these things is the same. Rivers where the silt is not managed flood when there's a lot of rain. Water systems with no storage run out of water quickly when there's a sustained dry period. Buildings with no air conditioning make life uncomfortable when the weather is unusually hot. The whole thing is designed to pitch people into crisis after crisis that will soften them up to give ever more of their freedom and their money to making it stop.
The last part of course is to gaslight the public by saying these things are not banned and that objecting to the not bans is engaging in a 'culture war'. So you can basically sweat in your house and like it, or be labelled a Faragist deplorable.
And yet air conditioning is permitted development - so I’m not 100% what you are saying is accurate as of March 2025
New aircon a retrofit on existing houses is permitted development. You can even get tax rebates.
New built flats are very difficult to get planning for, if they use air conditioning.
The reason for this, is that you have to prove the job can’t be done by “natural ventilation”. In one recent planning application, the issue of cooling the flats in 30 degree weather was brought up. The planners responded that this was so rare as to not to be a plausible reason.
Khan isn’t in charge of building regulations in England, incidently.
I still think this is Building Regs part L and part O, not planning. Our planning permission did not mention how the house would be heated or cooled. It did, to be fair, show an Air Source Heat Pump on the appropriate elevation but not for example the locations of our ventilation vents.
Aircon doesn't have to have an external unit btw.
Oh sure.
And if you go for internal loft units, in a house, there is pretty much nothing they can do.
Though, when my architects included the external units in the plans, I still got a call from the planning types complaining - though admitting there was nothing they could do to stop me.
It’s a cultural issue - air conditioning seems to be seen, by some, as a rich persons luxury and “energy inefficient”.
It's seen as emblematic of why Americans use so much more CO2 per capita than Britons, but, as ever, it isn't that simple.
That's possibly also one reason why British housing is so small.
I note the late, great Irene Handl is in it - she of the wonderful "I think you're confusing me with someone who gives a fuck." quote; presumably said in an Aunt Agatha voice.
Sadiq Khan's attempt to stop London residents from installing air conditioning is probably the closest thing for a thousand years to King Cnut trying to hold back the waves (even if the latter isn't historically accurate, lol).
According to Khan's plan launched 2 days ago there is no bar on AC when more than passive measures are needed. It also recommends AC for Hospitals and Care settings etc.
"The Well-Adapted UK report from the Climate Change Committee (the independent advisory group to government) sets clear, costed targets for reducing heat-health impacts. Passive methods for cooling (e.g., external shading) will minimise energy demand and increase resilience; but air conditioning will also be needed for vulnerable settings such as health and care. To reach safe and comfortable temperatures across other settings, there may be cases where air conditioning is needed in combination with passive measures."
No other hot country "debates" the merits of air conditioning, they just get on with it.
Other countries do also emphasise passive measures, notably trees and shading. Paris, Singapore, Chicago for example all require passive measures such as tree planting in order to provide shade, as well as a more pleasant ambience.
In any case AC is not banned by Khan, indeed he wants it in high risk places such as hospitals and care homes.
Also by far the most cost-effective measure you can make.
But we can all see where this is going - a contrived culture war where people pretend the world is black and white. Where encouraging cycling becomes “the war on cars”, where insulating homes properly is some sort of green conspiracy against energy consumption, and where planting street trees is all about “banning AC”.
Under the London Plan, air conditioning is strongly discouraged for new developments, which gives councils a reason to refuse planning permission for those that include it. Therefore developers do not include it and there is an effective ban.
This is the same as dredging, which isn't banned but tied up with so much red tape it no longer happens, and building new reservoirs, which has been de facto banned for decades. The reason behind all these things is the same. Rivers where the silt is not managed flood when there's a lot of rain. Water systems with no storage run out of water quickly when there's a sustained dry period. Buildings with no air conditioning make life uncomfortable when the weather is unusually hot. The whole thing is designed to pitch people into crisis after crisis that will soften them up to give ever more of their freedom and their money to making it stop.
The last part of course is to gaslight the public by saying these things are not banned and that objecting to the not bans is engaging in a 'culture war'. So you can basically sweat in your house and like it, or be labelled a Faragist deplorable.
Unless the planners put an explicit planning condition on:'No air con', it makes not a jot of difference. No one need specify air con in a planning app and not specifying it doesn't prevent you installing it.
It's actually Building Control guidance which is the issue. As updated in June 2022 Part L and Part O make it tricky to install air con in a new build. Not totally impossible but tricky.
The Conservative Party's campaign to overturn what they call a "de facto ban" on air conditioning in new homes is therefore somewhat hypocritical.
One of the bizarre things about the current right-wing is that they're obsessed with the Left taking away their freedoms when it is the techbros who are doing that right now with the surveillance infrastructure that they are building.
What freedoms are being taken away by the surveillance infrastructure?
Most people rather like criminals being caught on CCTV and brought to justice, for instance.
Freedom from harassment by a vengeful ex if they are able to buy access to the data, for example.
Sadiq Khan's attempt to stop London residents from installing air conditioning is probably the closest thing for a thousand years to King Cnut trying to hold back the waves (even if the latter isn't historically accurate, lol).
According to Khan's plan launched 2 days ago there is no bar on AC when more than passive measures are needed. It also recommends AC for Hospitals and Care settings etc.
"The Well-Adapted UK report from the Climate Change Committee (the independent advisory group to government) sets clear, costed targets for reducing heat-health impacts. Passive methods for cooling (e.g., external shading) will minimise energy demand and increase resilience; but air conditioning will also be needed for vulnerable settings such as health and care. To reach safe and comfortable temperatures across other settings, there may be cases where air conditioning is needed in combination with passive measures."
No other hot country "debates" the merits of air conditioning, they just get on with it.
Other countries do also emphasise passive measures, notably trees and shading. Paris, Singapore, Chicago for example all require passive measures such as tree planting in order to provide shade, as well as a more pleasant ambience.
In any case AC is not banned by Khan, indeed he wants it in high risk places such as hospitals and care homes.
Also by far the most cost-effective measure you can make.
But we can all see where this is going - a contrived culture war where people pretend the world is black and white. Where encouraging cycling becomes “the war on cars”, where insulating homes properly is some sort of green conspiracy against energy consumption, and where planting street trees is all about “banning AC”.
Under the London Plan, air conditioning is strongly discouraged for new developments, which gives councils a reason to refuse planning permission for those that include it. Therefore developers do not include it and there is an effective ban.
This is the same as dredging, which isn't banned but tied up with so much red tape it no longer happens, and building new reservoirs, which has been de facto banned for decades. The reason behind all these things is the same. Rivers where the silt is not managed flood when there's a lot of rain. Water systems with no storage run out of water quickly when there's a sustained dry period. Buildings with no air conditioning make life uncomfortable when the weather is unusually hot. The whole thing is designed to pitch people into crisis after crisis that will soften them up to give ever more of their freedom and their money to making it stop.
The last part of course is to gaslight the public by saying these things are not banned and that objecting to the not bans is engaging in a 'culture war'. So you can basically sweat in your house and like it, or be labelled a Faragist deplorable.
And yet air conditioning is permitted development - so I’m not 100% what you are saying is accurate as of March 2025
New aircon a retrofit on existing houses is permitted development. You can even get tax rebates.
New built flats are very difficult to get planning for, if they use air conditioning.
The reason for this, is that you have to prove the job can’t be done by “natural ventilation”. In one recent planning application, the issue of cooling the flats in 30 degree weather was brought up. The planners responded that this was so rare as to not to be a plausible reason.
Khan isn’t in charge of building regulations in England, incidently.
I still think this is Building Regs part L and part O, not planning. Our planning permission did not mention how the house would be heated or cooled. It did, to be fair, show an Air Source Heat Pump on the appropriate elevation but not for example the locations of our ventilation vents.
Aircon doesn't have to have an external unit btw.
Oh sure.
And if you go for internal loft units, in a house, there is pretty much nothing they can do.
Though, when my architects included the external units in the plans, I still got a call from the planning types complaining - though admitting there was nothing they could do to stop me.
It’s a cultural issue - air conditioning seems to be seen, by some, as a rich persons luxury and “energy inefficient”.
It's seen as emblematic of why Americans use so much more CO2 per capita than Britons, but, as ever, it isn't that simple.
That's possibly also one reason why British housing is so small.
The rattley old system from the 1960s maybe. Along with gas fueled dryers…
A modern air source heat pump is extremely efficient. Plus with modern insulation, you only need to use it a little bit to keep temperatures down.
Which idiot decided that the best time to broadcast the last round of England’s group was 10pm when two sides are European, Ghana has the meridian running through it and Panama are Central America. They could have played them at 8BST and they would have been perfect for three of the teams’ viewers at home and a nice post lunch Saturday afternoon match in Panama.
Yes it's going to test my England WC chops, this is. I'm tired for one thing (did not get my 8 hours last night) and we're through anyway. I might just do the match but skip all the punditry afterwards. Don't like doing that but I think I'll have to in this case.
It doesn't pass the risk/reward test imo. Burnham has 3 years as PM with a big majority. It's a dream. And there's every chance of making it 7 or 8 years if things work out. An early election, if he loses it, throws all that away. The upside (of winning it) doesn't compete. He might do it, of course he might, but I'd be very very surprised.
To be honest I think King Charles should say no to a dissolution with three years to go and a stonking majority and no economic crisis.
I guess we have got past the point when King might do such a thing if specifically asked but I wonder whether the 'usual channels' might let it be discretely known to Burnham and Parnell that it is not expected that he will be asked this far out.
No, if the PM wants a GE, the PM gets one. See T May in 2017 for example.
However, the only reason Burnham will go for an early GE is if he thinks it's opportune for his prospects. E.g, if in 12 months he has the chance to win another 5 years power. More likely he'll go in 2028 if he feels confident.
Which idiot decided that the best time to broadcast the last round of England’s group was 10pm when two sides are European, Ghana has the meridian running through it and Panama are Central America. They could have played them at 8BST and they would have been perfect for three of the teams’ viewers at home and a nice post lunch Saturday afternoon match in Panama.
Yes it's going to test my England WC chops, this is. I'm tired for one thing (did not get my 8 hours last night) and we're through anyway. I might just do the match but skip all the punditry afterwards. Don't like doing that but I think I'll have to in this case.
I always skip the post-match punditry. I might make an exception when we win the final.
Which idiot decided that the best time to broadcast the last round of England’s group was 10pm when two sides are European, Ghana has the meridian running through it and Panama are Central America. They could have played them at 8BST and they would have been perfect for three of the teams’ viewers at home and a nice post lunch Saturday afternoon match in Panama.
Yes it's going to test my England WC chops, this is. I'm tired for one thing (did not get my 8 hours last night) and we're through anyway. I might just do the match but skip all the punditry afterwards. Don't like doing that but I think I'll have to in this case.
The problem is the amount of time you have to booze before the match even starts. Now of course there are people with self control but Jesus waiting until 10pm, nursing a drink, on a sunny Saturday, to watch a World Cup match is a bit much.
Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I must admit, I enjoy @Sandpit's regular updates on Ukraine and the unplanned fires in Russian.
But his perspective on the US, which I have more independent knowledgeable on that Ukraine, makes me mistrust the reliability of his output elsewhere.
Trump is a truly awful human being and almost as bad a President. And that's putting things moderately.
Those defending him are the deranged ones.
I welcome diversity of opinion here and welcome Sandpit’s comments
It was a shame he left after not being pure enough on Ukraine, in spite having a personal investment in the issue, by that moron @JosiasJessop
i thought he left because he was embarrassed about orange and vance lambasting zelensky
@Sandpit hasn't left surely? I disagree with him on most left-right politics things but I'd miss his Ukraine posts a lot!
He’s still here, laughing at all the posts about him for standing up for Trump earlier.
Watching cricket and motorsport, and about to go out and watch the football. Some days there’s better things to do than argue about politics!
Which idiot decided that the best time to broadcast the last round of England’s group was 10pm when two sides are European, Ghana has the meridian running through it and Panama are Central America. They could have played them at 8BST and they would have been perfect for three of the teams’ viewers at home and a nice post lunch Saturday afternoon match in Panama.
Yes it's going to test my England WC chops, this is. I'm tired for one thing (did not get my 8 hours last night) and we're through anyway. I might just do the match but skip all the punditry afterwards. Don't like doing that but I think I'll have to in this case.
I always skip the post-match punditry. I might make an exception when we win the final.
I’m with you on this, but I suspect we won’t be watching punditry this year…
Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I must admit, I enjoy @Sandpit's regular updates on Ukraine and the unplanned fires in Russian.
But his perspective on the US, which I have more independent knowledgeable on that Ukraine, makes me mistrust the reliability of his output elsewhere.
Trump is a truly awful human being and almost as bad a President. And that's putting things moderately.
Those defending him are the deranged ones.
I welcome diversity of opinion here and welcome Sandpit’s comments
It was a shame he left after not being pure enough on Ukraine, in spite having a personal investment in the issue, by that moron @JosiasJessop
Why are you tagging JJ with that?
What’s it got to do with you ?
Since when am I answerable to you ?
I'm genuinely interested. Wouldn't ask otherwise.
Fair enough. I misunderstood. I presumed your comment was antagonistic.
I apologise for misjudging it.
No probs. So why did you tag him?
I thought it was common knowledge that JJ went a bit OTT and prompted Sandpit to leave.
I recall a contretemps, yes. It's just Taz's tagging (of JJ) that piqued my curiosity.
The Burnham has no mandate argument is utter horse manure.
He commands the House. Therefore he has a mandate. We do not elect a PM; we elect a House of Commons.
The latter bit has yet to be tested. 400 or so Labour MPs really feel that Burnham is so far superior to themselves that they need him to rescue them? I've never quite bought this, but the evidence available says that yes, they do think they are that useless. Such a thing is both scary and baffling - if you think you're useless why are you putting yourself up to be an MP?
Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I must admit, I enjoy @Sandpit's regular updates on Ukraine and the unplanned fires in Russian.
But his perspective on the US, which I have more independent knowledgeable on that Ukraine, makes me mistrust the reliability of his output elsewhere.
Trump is a truly awful human being and almost as bad a President. And that's putting things moderately.
Those defending him are the deranged ones.
I welcome diversity of opinion here and welcome Sandpit’s comments
It was a shame he left after not being pure enough on Ukraine, in spite having a personal investment in the issue, by that moron @JosiasJessop
Why are you tagging JJ with that?
What’s it got to do with you ?
Since when am I answerable to you ?
I'm genuinely interested. Wouldn't ask otherwise.
Fair enough. I misunderstood. I presumed your comment was antagonistic.
I apologise for misjudging it.
No probs. So why did you tag him?
He dips in regularly.
Just so he, hopefully, understands actions have consequences, and be kind. If someone doesn’t share your worldview doesn’t make them bad.
Which idiot decided that the best time to broadcast the last round of England’s group was 10pm when two sides are European, Ghana has the meridian running through it and Panama are Central America. They could have played them at 8BST and they would have been perfect for three of the teams’ viewers at home and a nice post lunch Saturday afternoon match in Panama.
Yes it's going to test my England WC chops, this is. I'm tired for one thing (did not get my 8 hours last night) and we're through anyway. I might just do the match but skip all the punditry afterwards. Don't like doing that but I think I'll have to in this case.
I always skip the post-match punditry. I might make an exception when we win the final.
I’m with you on this, but I suspect we won’t be watching punditry this year…
Anything could happen. The winning team doesn't always start well and isn't always the best team either.
The Burnham has no mandate argument is utter horse manure.
He commands the House. Therefore he has a mandate. We do not elect a PM; we elect a House of Commons.
Up to a point. Burnham will inherit Labour's Ming Vase mandate from 2024. What Burnham cannot do reasonably is claim that his Makersfield victory, however impressive, gives him a shiny new mandate to do something else entirely, and the same is true of winning an internal party leadership election. The last PM who did make such a claim was Liz Truss.
It doesn't pass the risk/reward test imo. Burnham has 3 years as PM with a big majority. It's a dream. And there's every chance of making it 7 or 8 years if things work out. An early election, if he loses it, throws all that away. The upside (of winning it) doesn't compete. He might do it, of course he might, but I'd be very very surprised.
To be honest I think King Charles should say no to a dissolution with three years to go and a stonking majority and no economic crisis.
I guess we have got past the point when King might do such a thing if specifically asked but I wonder whether the 'usual channels' might let it be discretely known to Burnham and Parnell that it is not expected that he will be asked this far out.
If the King gets involved in politics then we need a republic.
If someone else could command a majority in the Commons, then the King could invite them, but that is not the case.
It is the PMs job to make political decisions, not the figureheads.
The Burnham has no mandate argument is utter horse manure.
He commands the House. Therefore he has a mandate. We do not elect a PM; we elect a House of Commons.
The latter bit has yet to be tested. 400 or so Labour MPs really feel that Burnham is so far superior to themselves that they need him to rescue them? I've never quite bought this, but the evidence available says that yes, they do think they are that useless. Such a thing is both scary and baffling - if you think you're useless why are you putting yourself up to be an MP?
You've lost me to be honest.
What bit of "we elect a house of commons" has not be tested?
The Burnham has no mandate argument is utter horse manure.
He commands the House. Therefore he has a mandate. We do not elect a PM; we elect a House of Commons.
The latter bit has yet to be tested. 400 or so Labour MPs really feel that Burnham is so far superior to themselves that they need him to rescue them? I've never quite bought this, but the evidence available says that yes, they do think they are that useless. Such a thing is both scary and baffling - if you think you're useless why are you putting yourself up to be an MP?
You've lost me to be honest.
What bit of "we elect a house of commons" has not be tested?
Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I must admit, I enjoy @Sandpit's regular updates on Ukraine and the unplanned fires in Russian.
But his perspective on the US, which I have more independent knowledgeable on that Ukraine, makes me mistrust the reliability of his output elsewhere.
Trump is a truly awful human being and almost as bad a President. And that's putting things moderately.
Those defending him are the deranged ones.
I welcome diversity of opinion here and welcome Sandpit’s comments
It was a shame he left after not being pure enough on Ukraine, in spite having a personal investment in the issue, by that moron @JosiasJessop
Why are you tagging JJ with that?
What’s it got to do with you ?
Since when am I answerable to you ?
I'm genuinely interested. Wouldn't ask otherwise.
Fair enough. I misunderstood. I presumed your comment was antagonistic.
I apologise for misjudging it.
No probs. So why did you tag him?
I thought it was common knowledge that JJ went a bit OTT and prompted Sandpit to leave.
I recall a contretemps, yes. It's just Taz's tagging (of JJ) that piqued my curiosity.
Has Sandpit left? That's a shame.
Edit: Eh? He's just posted a message. I'm lost. Maybe it is the heat
Which idiot decided that the best time to broadcast the last round of England’s group was 10pm when two sides are European, Ghana has the meridian running through it and Panama are Central America. They could have played them at 8BST and they would have been perfect for three of the teams’ viewers at home and a nice post lunch Saturday afternoon match in Panama.
Yes it's going to test my England WC chops, this is. I'm tired for one thing (did not get my 8 hours last night) and we're through anyway. I might just do the match but skip all the punditry afterwards. Don't like doing that but I think I'll have to in this case.
The problem is the amount of time you have to booze before the match even starts. Now of course there are people with self control but Jesus waiting until 10pm, nursing a drink, on a sunny Saturday, to watch a World Cup match is a bit much.
Yes that's a point. I'm needing the booze to get to kick-off but then that's going to severely hamper my watching performance post 10pm. I'm also, since I've done shower/change, having to sit here for hours in my England shirt before the match. It's just not how things should be.
The Burnham has no mandate argument is utter horse manure.
He commands the House. Therefore he has a mandate. We do not elect a PM; we elect a House of Commons.
The latter bit has yet to be tested. 400 or so Labour MPs really feel that Burnham is so far superior to themselves that they need him to rescue them? I've never quite bought this, but the evidence available says that yes, they do think they are that useless. Such a thing is both scary and baffling - if you think you're useless why are you putting yourself up to be an MP?
You've lost me to be honest.
What bit of "we elect a house of commons" has not be tested?
Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I must admit, I enjoy @Sandpit's regular updates on Ukraine and the unplanned fires in Russian.
But his perspective on the US, which I have more independent knowledgeable on that Ukraine, makes me mistrust the reliability of his output elsewhere.
Trump is a truly awful human being and almost as bad a President. And that's putting things moderately.
Those defending him are the deranged ones.
I welcome diversity of opinion here and welcome Sandpit’s comments
It was a shame he left after not being pure enough on Ukraine, in spite having a personal investment in the issue, by that moron @JosiasJessop
Why are you tagging JJ with that?
What’s it got to do with you ?
Since when am I answerable to you ?
I'm genuinely interested. Wouldn't ask otherwise.
Fair enough. I misunderstood. I presumed your comment was antagonistic.
I apologise for misjudging it.
No probs. So why did you tag him?
I thought it was common knowledge that JJ went a bit OTT and prompted Sandpit to leave.
I recall a contretemps, yes. It's just Taz's tagging (of JJ) that piqued my curiosity.
Has Sandpit left? That's a shame.
Edit: Eh? He's just posted a message. I'm lost. Maybe it is the heat
Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I must admit, I enjoy @Sandpit's regular updates on Ukraine and the unplanned fires in Russian.
But his perspective on the US, which I have more independent knowledgeable on that Ukraine, makes me mistrust the reliability of his output elsewhere.
Trump is a truly awful human being and almost as bad a President. And that's putting things moderately.
Those defending him are the deranged ones.
I welcome diversity of opinion here and welcome Sandpit’s comments
It was a shame he left after not being pure enough on Ukraine, in spite having a personal investment in the issue, by that moron @JosiasJessop
Why are you tagging JJ with that?
What’s it got to do with you ?
Since when am I answerable to you ?
I'm genuinely interested. Wouldn't ask otherwise.
Fair enough. I misunderstood. I presumed your comment was antagonistic.
I apologise for misjudging it.
No probs. So why did you tag him?
I thought it was common knowledge that JJ went a bit OTT and prompted Sandpit to leave.
I recall a contretemps, yes. It's just Taz's tagging (of JJ) that piqued my curiosity.
Has Sandpit left? That's a shame.
Edit: Eh? He's just posted a message. I'm lost. Maybe it is the heat
Which idiot decided that the best time to broadcast the last round of England’s group was 10pm when two sides are European, Ghana has the meridian running through it and Panama are Central America. They could have played them at 8BST and they would have been perfect for three of the teams’ viewers at home and a nice post lunch Saturday afternoon match in Panama.
Yes it's going to test my England WC chops, this is. I'm tired for one thing (did not get my 8 hours last night) and we're through anyway. I might just do the match but skip all the punditry afterwards. Don't like doing that but I think I'll have to in this case.
The problem is the amount of time you have to booze before the match even starts. Now of course there are people with self control but Jesus waiting until 10pm, nursing a drink, on a sunny Saturday, to watch a World Cup match is a bit much.
Yes that's a point. I'm needing the booze to get to kick-off but then that's going to severely hamper my watching performance post 10pm. I'm also, since I've done shower/change, having to sit here for hours in my England shirt before the match. It's just not how things should be.
Should have bought a brand new maxi fibre sweat wicking circulation boosting Nike super top. You will just have to start drinking now and dipping into the world of PB until kick off.
The Burnham has no mandate argument is utter horse manure.
He commands the House. Therefore he has a mandate. We do not elect a PM; we elect a House of Commons.
Up to a point. Burnham will inherit Labour's Ming Vase mandate from 2024. What Burnham cannot do reasonably is claim that his Makersfield victory, however impressive, gives him a shiny new mandate to do something else entirely, and the same is true of winning an internal party leadership election. The last PM who did make such a claim was Liz Truss.
If over 300 MPs nominate him to become party leader and Prime Minister then he can claim that as a mandate, whether you like it or not.
I'm sorry but why is anyone listening to a word that Simon Case says?
To do the opposite?
I understand he's now a fairly junior part-time clerk at Barrow in Furness town council. Sounds about right, but it's unusual for them to actually go and do it.
Now he just needs to take his fellow imbeciles Cummings and Acland-Hood with him...
The Burnham has no mandate argument is utter horse manure.
He commands the House. Therefore he has a mandate. We do not elect a PM; we elect a House of Commons.
The latter bit has yet to be tested. 400 or so Labour MPs really feel that Burnham is so far superior to themselves that they need him to rescue them? I've never quite bought this, but the evidence available says that yes, they do think they are that useless. Such a thing is both scary and baffling - if you think you're useless why are you putting yourself up to be an MP?
You've lost me to be honest.
What bit of "we elect a house of commons" has not be tested?
The 'He commands the house' bit.
It will be tested before he becomes PM.
They are lining up to nominate him!
Indeed. Step one, and if that doesn't happen then he's nowhere. He's not there yet. Does this translate to a mandate? A bit sketchy. We do indeed elect a HoC, and will Burnham's burning diatribe align with what his supporters stood for? (The answer is clearly 'no', but can the reality be stretched?)
Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I must admit, I enjoy @Sandpit's regular updates on Ukraine and the unplanned fires in Russian.
But his perspective on the US, which I have more independent knowledgeable on that Ukraine, makes me mistrust the reliability of his output elsewhere.
Trump is a truly awful human being and almost as bad a President. And that's putting things moderately.
Those defending him are the deranged ones.
I welcome diversity of opinion here and welcome Sandpit’s comments
It was a shame he left after not being pure enough on Ukraine, in spite having a personal investment in the issue, by that moron @JosiasJessop
Why are you tagging JJ with that?
What’s it got to do with you ?
Since when am I answerable to you ?
I'm genuinely interested. Wouldn't ask otherwise.
Fair enough. I misunderstood. I presumed your comment was antagonistic.
I apologise for misjudging it.
No probs. So why did you tag him?
I thought it was common knowledge that JJ went a bit OTT and prompted Sandpit to leave.
I recall a contretemps, yes. It's just Taz's tagging (of JJ) that piqued my curiosity.
Has Sandpit left? That's a shame.
Edit: Eh? He's just posted a message. I'm lost. Maybe it is the heat
No, he left a while ago after failing Jessops purity test but, fortunately, came back.
Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I must admit, I enjoy @Sandpit's regular updates on Ukraine and the unplanned fires in Russian.
But his perspective on the US, which I have more independent knowledgeable on that Ukraine, makes me mistrust the reliability of his output elsewhere.
Trump is a truly awful human being and almost as bad a President. And that's putting things moderately.
Those defending him are the deranged ones.
I welcome diversity of opinion here and welcome Sandpit’s comments
It was a shame he left after not being pure enough on Ukraine, in spite having a personal investment in the issue, by that moron @JosiasJessop
Why are you tagging JJ with that?
What’s it got to do with you ?
Since when am I answerable to you ?
I'm genuinely interested. Wouldn't ask otherwise.
Fair enough. I misunderstood. I presumed your comment was antagonistic.
I apologise for misjudging it.
No probs. So why did you tag him?
I thought it was common knowledge that JJ went a bit OTT and prompted Sandpit to leave.
I recall a contretemps, yes. It's just Taz's tagging (of JJ) that piqued my curiosity.
Has Sandpit left? That's a shame.
Edit: Eh? He's just posted a message. I'm lost. Maybe it is the heat
The Burnham has no mandate argument is utter horse manure.
He commands the House. Therefore he has a mandate. We do not elect a PM; we elect a House of Commons.
Up to a point. Burnham will inherit Labour's Ming Vase mandate from 2024. What Burnham cannot do reasonably is claim that his Makersfield victory, however impressive, gives him a shiny new mandate to do something else entirely, and the same is true of winning an internal party leadership election. The last PM who did make such a claim was Liz Truss.
If over 300 MPs nominate him to become party leader and Prime Minister then he can claim that as a mandate, whether you like it or not.
We elect MPs, not manifestos.
It’s absolutely fine and constitutional. Let’s just hope if it happens again in the future we don’t have Labour MPs queuing up to demand an election like they did with the Tories as that would be very embarrassing.
Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I must admit, I enjoy @Sandpit's regular updates on Ukraine and the unplanned fires in Russian.
But his perspective on the US, which I have more independent knowledgeable on that Ukraine, makes me mistrust the reliability of his output elsewhere.
Trump is a truly awful human being and almost as bad a President. And that's putting things moderately.
Those defending him are the deranged ones.
I welcome diversity of opinion here and welcome Sandpit’s comments
It was a shame he left after not being pure enough on Ukraine, in spite having a personal investment in the issue, by that moron @JosiasJessop
Why are you tagging JJ with that?
What’s it got to do with you ?
Since when am I answerable to you ?
I'm genuinely interested. Wouldn't ask otherwise.
Fair enough. I misunderstood. I presumed your comment was antagonistic.
I apologise for misjudging it.
No probs. So why did you tag him?
He dips in regularly.
Just so he, hopefully, understands actions have consequences, and be kind. If someone doesn’t share your worldview doesn’t make them bad.
Ah it's so he gets to read it - the 'moron' epithet - if he drops into the site for a read?
Yes that's very kind, Taz.
But ok on the off chance he does drop in, and feeling quite kind myself this evening, I will say right here on the record that I liked and rated JJ as a poster, despite a fair few bickerings we had.
Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I must admit, I enjoy @Sandpit's regular updates on Ukraine and the unplanned fires in Russian.
But his perspective on the US, which I have more independent knowledgeable on that Ukraine, makes me mistrust the reliability of his output elsewhere.
Trump is a truly awful human being and almost as bad a President. And that's putting things moderately.
Those defending him are the deranged ones.
I welcome diversity of opinion here and welcome Sandpit’s comments
It was a shame he left after not being pure enough on Ukraine, in spite having a personal investment in the issue, by that moron @JosiasJessop
Why are you tagging JJ with that?
What’s it got to do with you ?
Since when am I answerable to you ?
I'm genuinely interested. Wouldn't ask otherwise.
Fair enough. I misunderstood. I presumed your comment was antagonistic.
I apologise for misjudging it.
No probs. So why did you tag him?
He dips in regularly.
Just so he, hopefully, understands actions have consequences, and be kind. If someone doesn’t share your worldview doesn’t make them bad.
Ah it's so he gets to read it - the 'moron' epithet - if he drops into the site for a read?
Yes that's very kind, Taz.
But ok on the off chance he does drop in, and feeling quite kind myself this evening, I will say right here on the record that I liked and rated him as a poster, despite a fair few bickerings we had.
And he'll read that because of your tag.
What an excellent outcome all round 🙂
He was someone who was unpleasant to me more than once. Called out for it. Doubled down. So fuck him.
With the whole King of the North marches to Londinium thing we seem to have not noticed perhaps that this has been Reform's worst couple of weeks in ages.
Farage - £5m. Various terrible tv interviews related to that. Plus he looks out of sorts and frankly nackered. Some pol commentators now saying will he actually still be leader in 2029? Yusuf - gets hooked into telling QT audience that he has applied to be a by-election candidate but the party blocked him. The polling for Manc mayor (Reform types don't seem to have understood SV voting)
Then of course there's Makerfield itself. Speccie seems to be saying that some Reform sources say they knew Kenyon would be shit but it was important to show that an ordinary Reform member could make it to be an MP. Laudible but this is a fight to the political death with the King. So erm???
Watching “Two Way Stretch” on Talking Pictures TV.
It's a great film. I saw it at the cinema many decades ago in a double bill with "I'm All Right Jack.". Dusty Springfield was in the audience and the manager presented her a box of chocolates. Memories.
Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I must admit, I enjoy @Sandpit's regular updates on Ukraine and the unplanned fires in Russian.
But his perspective on the US, which I have more independent knowledgeable on that Ukraine, makes me mistrust the reliability of his output elsewhere.
Trump is a truly awful human being and almost as bad a President. And that's putting things moderately.
Those defending him are the deranged ones.
I welcome diversity of opinion here and welcome Sandpit’s comments
It was a shame he left after not being pure enough on Ukraine, in spite having a personal investment in the issue, by that moron @JosiasJessop
Why are you tagging JJ with that?
What’s it got to do with you ?
Since when am I answerable to you ?
I'm genuinely interested. Wouldn't ask otherwise.
Fair enough. I misunderstood. I presumed your comment was antagonistic.
I apologise for misjudging it.
No probs. So why did you tag him?
I thought it was common knowledge that JJ went a bit OTT and prompted Sandpit to leave.
I recall a contretemps, yes. It's just Taz's tagging (of JJ) that piqued my curiosity.
Has Sandpit left? That's a shame.
Edit: Eh? He's just posted a message. I'm lost. Maybe it is the heat
No, it's JosiasJessop who's left! Ages ago.
But still getting called a moron and tagged.
This is what I'm investigating.
He's stopped posting, rather than having left.
Yes. He still reads the site, I believe. So tags will get through.
Watching “Two Way Stretch” on Talking Pictures TV.
It's a great film. I saw it at the cinema many decades ago in a double bill with "I'm All Right Jack.". Dusty Springfield was in the audience and the manager presented her a box of chocolates. Memories.
A/c liberalisation would be a decent Burnham policy, so long as he ensures it doesn't look like a sop to "the South".
Decent because it is pragmatic deregulation, but also because of the terms it can be couched in: "back in the day we didn't generally need a/c in the UK because of our temperate climate, but we all know that the climate is heating up and whilst we must do as much as possible to limit how hot it gets, we've got to recognise that building regs must change with the climate".
The Burnham has no mandate argument is utter horse manure.
He commands the House. Therefore he has a mandate. We do not elect a PM; we elect a House of Commons.
Up to a point. Burnham will inherit Labour's Ming Vase mandate from 2024. What Burnham cannot do reasonably is claim that his Makersfield victory, however impressive, gives him a shiny new mandate to do something else entirely, and the same is true of winning an internal party leadership election. The last PM who did make such a claim was Liz Truss.
If over 300 MPs nominate him to become party leader and Prime Minister then he can claim that as a mandate, whether you like it or not.
We elect MPs, not manifestos.
It’s absolutely fine and constitutional. Let’s just hope if it happens again in the future we don’t have Labour MPs queuing up to demand an election like they did with the Tories as that would be very embarrassing.
If Major, May, Truss and Sunak had not all ignored calls for an early GE then it would be embarrassing not to follow precedent. But they didn't, so it's not.
Johnson only held an early election because he couldn't deliver Brexit without one.
Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I must admit, I enjoy @Sandpit's regular updates on Ukraine and the unplanned fires in Russian.
But his perspective on the US, which I have more independent knowledgeable on that Ukraine, makes me mistrust the reliability of his output elsewhere.
Trump is a truly awful human being and almost as bad a President. And that's putting things moderately.
Those defending him are the deranged ones.
I welcome diversity of opinion here and welcome Sandpit’s comments
It was a shame he left after not being pure enough on Ukraine, in spite having a personal investment in the issue, by that moron @JosiasJessop
Why are you tagging JJ with that?
What’s it got to do with you ?
Since when am I answerable to you ?
I'm genuinely interested. Wouldn't ask otherwise.
Fair enough. I misunderstood. I presumed your comment was antagonistic.
I apologise for misjudging it.
No probs. So why did you tag him?
He dips in regularly.
Just so he, hopefully, understands actions have consequences, and be kind. If someone doesn’t share your worldview doesn’t make them bad.
Ah it's so he gets to read it - the 'moron' epithet - if he drops into the site for a read?
Yes that's very kind, Taz.
But ok on the off chance he does drop in, and feeling quite kind myself this evening, I will say right here on the record that I liked and rated him as a poster, despite a fair few bickerings we had.
And he'll read that because of your tag.
What an excellent outcome all round 🙂
He was someone who was unpleasant to me more than once. Called out for it. Doubled down. So fuck him.
Ah ok. Hence you want to keep insulting him - and the tag is so he reads it.
Betting on Ukraine to win is a mugs game (worse than betting on PAK Womens cricket) despite a few wins here and there IMO!
I’m not betting, just massively cheering on Ukraine from the sidelines.
Whilst you support Trump
For the 100th time no I don’t support him. I just don’t think he’s Hitler, and try to correct some of the more deranged things said about him.
If you need to correct something 100 times, perhaps consider that you are not portraying yourself that way.
It’s not my fault that most of this board has severe TDS.
Alright let’s tackle this head on.
What is an example where you think Trump is right and this board wrong? Just one will do.
Ooh, so where to start.
That there is rampant election fraud in the US
That conflicted foreigners should be deported immedaitely
That illegal immigrants should be deported
That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are lost to fraud
That NATO has been supported purely by the US for decades, and that European nations need to step up
That most of those convicted for the 6th Jan protest were innocent bystanders
That Iran must be stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon by any means necessary
That everything bad in the last four decades of the Middle East has Iran’s fingerprints on it.
That Israel has the right to defend itself, and has generally behaved well in response to the Oct 7th attacks.
That Gaza will only behave itself if allowed to prosper economically
That the Democratic Party is becoming infested with communists and antisemites.
But mostly it’s not actually policy positions that people are annoyed by, it’s Trump himself. They either take him far too literally, or they start from the premise that whatever it is must be bad because Trump is doing it or supports it, and work backwards from there.
Right, an afternoon of cricket and F1 beckons.
Thank you for replying. I will read over it and respond later.
I wouldn't bother. Anyone whose starts by echoing Trump's "there is rampant election fraud in the US" is too far down the rabbit hole to reason with.
I must admit, I enjoy @Sandpit's regular updates on Ukraine and the unplanned fires in Russian.
But his perspective on the US, which I have more independent knowledgeable on that Ukraine, makes me mistrust the reliability of his output elsewhere.
Trump is a truly awful human being and almost as bad a President. And that's putting things moderately.
Those defending him are the deranged ones.
I welcome diversity of opinion here and welcome Sandpit’s comments
It was a shame he left after not being pure enough on Ukraine, in spite having a personal investment in the issue, by that moron @JosiasJessop
Why are you tagging JJ with that?
What’s it got to do with you ?
Since when am I answerable to you ?
I'm genuinely interested. Wouldn't ask otherwise.
Fair enough. I misunderstood. I presumed your comment was antagonistic.
I apologise for misjudging it.
No probs. So why did you tag him?
He dips in regularly.
Just so he, hopefully, understands actions have consequences, and be kind. If someone doesn’t share your worldview doesn’t make them bad.
Ah it's so he gets to read it - the 'moron' epithet - if he drops into the site for a read?
Yes that's very kind, Taz.
But ok on the off chance he does drop in, and feeling quite kind myself this evening, I will say right here on the record that I liked and rated him as a poster, despite a fair few bickerings we had.
And he'll read that because of your tag.
What an excellent outcome all round 🙂
He was someone who was unpleasant to me more than once. Called out for it. Doubled down. So fuck him.
Ah ok. Hence you want to keep insulting him - and the tag is so he reads it.
That was my top theory.
Bloody hell. Digital strife indeed.
what's digital life in 2026 without obscure online feuds i ask you
The Burnham has no mandate argument is utter horse manure.
He commands the House. Therefore he has a mandate. We do not elect a PM; we elect a House of Commons.
Up to a point. Burnham will inherit Labour's Ming Vase mandate from 2024. What Burnham cannot do reasonably is claim that his Makersfield victory, however impressive, gives him a shiny new mandate to do something else entirely, and the same is true of winning an internal party leadership election. The last PM who did make such a claim was Liz Truss.
If over 300 MPs nominate him to become party leader and Prime Minister then he can claim that as a mandate, whether you like it or not.
We elect MPs, not manifestos.
Yes, in practice, Burnham can do whatever he likes. What he cannot do, however, is state that either the Makersfield by-election or an internal leadership election constitutes a new mandate that is distinct from the mandate given to the Labour government by its 2024 election victory.
A/c liberalisation would be a decent Burnham policy, so long as he ensures it doesn't look like a sop to "the South".
Decent because it is pragmatic deregulation, but also because of the terms it can be couched in: "back in the day we didn't generally need a/c in the UK because of our temperate climate, but we all know that the climate is heating up and whilst we must do as much as possible to limit how hot it gets, we've got to recognise that building regs must change with the climate".
He could also add that where air conditioning can be powered by renewables and especially by local solar panels, its carbon footprint vanishes to zero-ish.
A/c liberalisation would be a decent Burnham policy, so long as he ensures it doesn't look like a sop to "the South".
Decent because it is pragmatic deregulation, but also because of the terms it can be couched in: "back in the day we didn't generally need a/c in the UK because of our temperate climate, but we all know that the climate is heating up and whilst we must do as much as possible to limit how hot it gets, we've got to recognise that building regs must change with the climate".
He could also add that where air conditioning can be powered by renewables and especially by local solar panels, its carbon footprint vanishes to zero-ish.
The Burnham has no mandate argument is utter horse manure.
He commands the House. Therefore he has a mandate. We do not elect a PM; we elect a House of Commons.
Up to a point. Burnham will inherit Labour's Ming Vase mandate from 2024. What Burnham cannot do reasonably is claim that his Makersfield victory, however impressive, gives him a shiny new mandate to do something else entirely, and the same is true of winning an internal party leadership election. The last PM who did make such a claim was Liz Truss.
If over 300 MPs nominate him to become party leader and Prime Minister then he can claim that as a mandate, whether you like it or not.
We elect MPs, not manifestos.
Yes, in practice, Burnham can do whatever he likes. What he cannot do, however, is state that either the Makersfield by-election or an internal leadership election constitutes a new mandate that is distinct from the mandate given to the Labour government by its 2024 election victory.
The Burnham has no mandate argument is utter horse manure.
He commands the House. Therefore he has a mandate. We do not elect a PM; we elect a House of Commons.
Agree. Once a general election has taken place then you don't have another one until one of three things occurs: the passing of five years, the PM asking for and getting a dissolution, and thirdly the government falling by virtue of a VONC and parliament fails to find an alternative which does find support.
So (extreme example) 220 Labour MPs and 110 Tory MPs all join Reform and take the Reform whip next week. Labour government loses VONC. Parliament tests whether Farage PM can get the support of 325 MPs. If he does he stays. If he doesn't, general election is called.
Manifestos have no force except by convention when dealing with the powers of the House of Lords. What does have force is the election of each MP to do their bit in being an operative parliament until for some reason this is so impossible that there is no government
The Burnham has no mandate argument is utter horse manure.
He commands the House. Therefore he has a mandate. We do not elect a PM; we elect a House of Commons.
Up to a point. Burnham will inherit Labour's Ming Vase mandate from 2024. What Burnham cannot do reasonably is claim that his Makersfield victory, however impressive, gives him a shiny new mandate to do something else entirely, and the same is true of winning an internal party leadership election. The last PM who did make such a claim was Liz Truss.
If over 300 MPs nominate him to become party leader and Prime Minister then he can claim that as a mandate, whether you like it or not.
We elect MPs, not manifestos.
Yes, in practice, Burnham can do whatever he likes. What he cannot do, however, is state that either the Makersfield by-election or an internal leadership election constitutes a new mandate that is distinct from the mandate given to the Labour government by its 2024 election victory.
Why not?
The only practical restraint is that if the HoL disagrees with some madcap Bill or other and it wasn't in the Manifesto then things become harder.
But iirc the Starmer manifesto was so anodyne that there could be "interpretations" of things anyway.
Even a Land Tax was not ruled out in Starmer 2024 manifesto so could be argued was there in an unwritten way.
The Burnham has no mandate argument is utter horse manure.
He commands the House. Therefore he has a mandate. We do not elect a PM; we elect a House of Commons.
Agree. Once a general election has taken place then you don't have another one until one of three things occurs: the passing of five years, the PM asking for and getting a dissolution, and thirdly the government falling by virtue of a VONC and parliament fails to find an alternative which does find support.
So (extreme example) 220 Labour MPs and 110 Tory MPs all join Reform and take the Reform whip next week. Labour government loses VONC. Parliament tests whether Farage PM can get the support of 325 MPs. If he does he stays. If he doesn't, general election is called.
Manifestos have no force except by convention when dealing with the powers of the House of Lords. What does have force is the election of each MP to do their bit in being an operative parliament until for some reason this is so impossible that there is no government
Until 1905 it was actually fairly common for governments to change party without an election.
From 1865 to 1868 there were four prime ministers from three different parties, but no election.
A Terrible Thing Happened to My Family Even in today's climate, there should be one fundamental principle everyone respects: whatever you think about someone in politics, you leave their kids alone. https://petebuttigieg.substack.com/p/a-terrible-thing-happened-to-my-family Someone decided to hurt our family this week. I’m furious, and I want to share what happened.
You’ve probably heard of “swatting.” It’s a cruel and dangerous kind of hoax that has started happening more frequently in recent years. Someone anonymously calls 911 with a false report of imminent danger, such as a hostage situation, at the home of a public figure. Law enforcement swarms the house, guns drawn, terrifying the unsuspecting homeowner and family and sometimes even leading to deaths or injuries in the confusion. It’s happened to dozens of lawmakers, judges, celebrities, and others. (When I was in the Cabinet, someone attempted to do this to our home, but fortunately the hoax was quickly detected.) It’s become enough of a problem that the FBI now has a dedicated database to track such incidents.
Now imagine the same concept, but with Child Protective Services instead of a SWAT team. Hadn’t thought of that? Me neither, until a few days ago when a police officer and a CPS worker showed up at our home and politely asked to speak with me.
I showed them in, invited them on the deck so that we could hear each other over the barking dog, and asked what was going on. They explained that there had been an allegation against me, that it concerned our four-year-old twins, and that a forensic interview had been arranged for the children the following day. I could not be present at the children’s interview, nor could any family member sit in. Afterwards, they would come back and interview me. And only then would they tell me anything about the nature of the allegation...
That's appalling. Who would want to be in politics in the US? No wonder so many of them are mad.
Buttigieg is right, though I'd suggest there are at least two problems here:
1 - The use of the crime of swatting as a tactic, or whatever this is called where it is social services and children. 2 - There is also a question about the culture and practices of US law enforcement, which is I think deeper.
Has Trump commented? He has a longstanding practice of publicly demonising innocent individuals such as Court Clerks involved in his cases, which with his rhetoric contributes to a contemporary culture where violence is tolerated.
Trump's administration has also used threats of separation of children from their families as an intimidatory practice.
A/c liberalisation would be a decent Burnham policy, so long as he ensures it doesn't look like a sop to "the South".
Decent because it is pragmatic deregulation, but also because of the terms it can be couched in: "back in the day we didn't generally need a/c in the UK because of our temperate climate, but we all know that the climate is heating up and whilst we must do as much as possible to limit how hot it gets, we've got to recognise that building regs must change with the climate".
He could also add that where air conditioning can be powered by renewables and especially by local solar panels, its carbon footprint vanishes to zero-ish.
Yep if your plan is to decarbonise the electricity grid (more or less) then A/C will have minimal impact.
Especially as peak A/C demand in the future will correlate almost perfectly with peak solar supply, so we should be aiming for surplus power generation to be used.
Within Westminster there is growing speculation Nigel Farage will not lead Reform into the next election. If that proves correct, it could create a political earthquake that would surpass any of the reverberations Keir Starmer and Andy Burnham have generated over the past week.
A/c liberalisation would be a decent Burnham policy, so long as he ensures it doesn't look like a sop to "the South".
Decent because it is pragmatic deregulation, but also because of the terms it can be couched in: "back in the day we didn't generally need a/c in the UK because of our temperate climate, but we all know that the climate is heating up and whilst we must do as much as possible to limit how hot it gets, we've got to recognise that building regs must change with the climate".
He could also add that where air conditioning can be powered by renewables and especially by local solar panels, its carbon footprint vanishes to zero-ish.
Yep if your plan is to decarbonise the electricity grid (more or less) then A/C will have minimal impact.
Especially as peak A/C demand in the future will correlate almost perfectly with peak solar supply, so we should be aiming for surplus power generation to be used.
Even the kind of modest array of panels you can add to a terraced house (such as mine) generates more than enough 'leecy on a day when aircon is required, to run the aircon. I am exporting to the grid, while living at 18c.
The Burnham has no mandate argument is utter horse manure.
He commands the House. Therefore he has a mandate. We do not elect a PM; we elect a House of Commons.
Up to a point. Burnham will inherit Labour's Ming Vase mandate from 2024. What Burnham cannot do reasonably is claim that his Makersfield victory, however impressive, gives him a shiny new mandate to do something else entirely, and the same is true of winning an internal party leadership election. The last PM who did make such a claim was Liz Truss.
If over 300 MPs nominate him to become party leader and Prime Minister then he can claim that as a mandate, whether you like it or not.
We elect MPs, not manifestos.
Yes, in practice, Burnham can do whatever he likes. What he cannot do, however, is state that either the Makersfield by-election or an internal leadership election constitutes a new mandate that is distinct from the mandate given to the Labour government by its 2024 election victory.
There is neither an old mandate or a new one. Governments govern as long as they don't lose a VONC. They can't do what they like except as the have powers to do as government. In parliamentary terms they can only do what gets a majority vote in parliament. We elect MPs to use their judgment, not to be mandated to anything. They are not delegates. Any 325 of them can decide it's time for an election if they feel so inclined and the government can do nothing to stop it.
The Burnham has no mandate argument is utter horse manure.
He commands the House. Therefore he has a mandate. We do not elect a PM; we elect a House of Commons.
Agree. Once a general election has taken place then you don't have another one until one of three things occurs: the passing of five years, the PM asking for and getting a dissolution, and thirdly the government falling by virtue of a VONC and parliament fails to find an alternative which does find support.
So (extreme example) 220 Labour MPs and 110 Tory MPs all join Reform and take the Reform whip next week. Labour government loses VONC. Parliament tests whether Farage PM can get the support of 325 MPs. If he does he stays. If he doesn't, general election is called.
Manifestos have no force except by convention when dealing with the powers of the House of Lords. What does have force is the election of each MP to do their bit in being an operative parliament until for some reason this is so impossible that there is no government
Until 1905 it was actually fairly common for governments to change party without an election.
From 1865 to 1868 there were four prime ministers from three different parties, but no election.
Comments
Since when am I answerable to you ?
New built flats are very difficult to get planning for, if they use air conditioning.
The reason for this, is that you have to prove the job can’t be done by “natural ventilation”. In one recent planning application, the issue of cooling the flats in 30 degree weather was brought up. The planners responded that this was so rare as to not to be a plausible reason.
Khan isn’t in charge of building regulations in England, incidently.
New built flats are very difficult to get planning for, if they use air conditioning.
The reason for this, is that you have to prove the job can’t be done by “natural ventilation”. In one recent planning application, the issue of cooling the flats in 30 degree weather was brought up. The planners responded that this was so rare as to not to be a plausible reason.
Khan isn’t in charge of building regulations in England, incidently.
It's actually Building Control guidance which is the issue. As updated in June 2022 Part L and Part O make it tricky to install air con in a new build. Not totally impossible but tricky.
The Conservative Party's campaign to overturn what they call a "de facto ban" on air conditioning in new homes is therefore somewhat hypocritical.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/06/27/simon-case-interview-burnham-downing-street/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/06/27/simon-case-interview-burnham-downing-street/
But there is no such thing as permitted development for new builds. All new builds need permission, absurdly, rather than having permitted development standards.
So if its frowned upon by those giving permission [I don't know] then that could be a deterrent to installation even if other standards say it is permitted.
Retrofitting is always harder than designing it in the first time.
I apologise for misjudging it.
Aircon doesn't have to have an external unit btw.
And if you go for internal loft units, in a house, there is pretty much nothing they can do.
Though, when my architects included the external units in the plans, I still got a call from the planning types complaining - though admitting there was nothing they could do to stop me.
It’s a cultural issue - air conditioning seems to be seen, by some, as a rich persons luxury and “energy inefficient”.
In this tournament a win over an opponent trumps goal difference within the group if two teams end on the same points ( different if it’s multiple teams in the group or across groups for one of the best 3rd places). As Panama lost to Croatia and have zero points to Croatia’s three, they cannot overtake Croatia. Ghana and England already have four points each too.
I guess we have got past the point when King might do such a thing if specifically asked but I wonder whether the 'usual channels' might let it be discretely known to Burnham and Parnell that it is not expected that he will be asked this far out.
Most people rather like criminals being caught on CCTV and brought to justice, for instance.
That's possibly also one reason why British housing is so small.
He commands the House. Therefore he has a mandate. We do not elect a PM; we elect a House of Commons.
I note the late, great Irene Handl is in it - she of the wonderful "I think you're confusing me with someone who gives a fuck." quote; presumably said in an Aunt Agatha voice.
A modern air source heat pump is extremely efficient. Plus with modern insulation, you only need to use it a little bit to keep temperatures down.
However, the only reason Burnham will go for an early GE is if he thinks it's opportune for his prospects. E.g, if in 12 months he has the chance to win another 5 years power. More likely he'll go in 2028 if he feels confident.
If they all happen to support him afterwards, he’s PM
Watching cricket and motorsport, and about to go out and watch the football. Some days there’s better things to do than argue about politics!
Just so he, hopefully, understands actions have consequences, and be kind. If someone doesn’t share your worldview doesn’t make them bad.
But, of course, in opposition Labour tediously played this card.
If someone else could command a majority in the Commons, then the King could invite them, but that is not the case.
It is the PMs job to make political decisions, not the figureheads.
What bit of "we elect a house of commons" has not be tested?
Edit: Eh? He's just posted a message. I'm lost. Maybe it is the heat
They are lining up to nominate him!
But still getting called a moron and tagged.
This is what I'm investigating.
We elect MPs, not manifestos.
"Britain needs more air conditioning right now
Petty rules and old buildings are putting us in danger"
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2026/06/britain-needs-more-air-conditioning-right-now
I understand he's now a fairly junior part-time clerk at Barrow in Furness town council. Sounds about right, but it's unusual for them to actually go and do it.
Now he just needs to take his fellow imbeciles Cummings and Acland-Hood with him...
Yes that's very kind, Taz.
But ok on the off chance he does drop in, and feeling quite kind myself this evening, I will say right here on the record that I liked and rated JJ as a poster, despite a fair few bickerings we had.
And he'll read that because of your tag.
What an excellent outcome all round 🙂
Labour won a mandate. Their MPs can decode who the leader is. We do not vote for a PM. Their hypocrisy is no,surprise .
I voted for Luke Akehurst not SKS
Farage - £5m. Various terrible tv interviews related to that. Plus he looks out of sorts and frankly nackered. Some pol commentators now saying will he actually still be leader in 2029?
Yusuf - gets hooked into telling QT audience that he has applied to be a by-election candidate but the party blocked him.
The polling for Manc mayor (Reform types don't seem to have understood SV voting)
Then of course there's Makerfield itself.
Speccie seems to be saying that some Reform sources say they knew Kenyon would be shit but it was important to show that an ordinary Reform member could make it to be an MP. Laudible but this is a fight to the political death with the King. So erm???
I’m alright Jack is also glorious.
I’m dead jealous of you.
Decent because it is pragmatic deregulation, but also because of the terms it can be couched in: "back in the day we didn't generally need a/c in the UK because of our temperate climate, but we all know that the climate is heating up and whilst we must do as much as possible to limit how hot it gets, we've got to recognise that building regs must change with the climate".
Johnson only held an early election because he couldn't deliver Brexit without one.
Bizarrely low energy.
That was my top theory.
Bloody hell. Digital strife indeed.
Every person who demanded it for the recent Conservative PMs is ridiculing the idea that the Burnsiah will need to hold one.
Everyone who opposed the idea for the recent Conservative PMs is now demanding one.
The only thing more ridiculous than being surprised by this is those getting their panties in a twist about it. Either way.
Would have ideally had 2 dogs for scale but apparently it's 300 cubits long.
Although if he did, that's another reason to do the opposite of his advice on any given topic...
So (extreme example) 220 Labour MPs and 110 Tory MPs all join Reform and take the Reform whip next week. Labour government loses VONC. Parliament tests whether Farage PM can get the support of 325 MPs. If he does he stays. If he doesn't, general election is called.
Manifestos have no force except by convention when dealing with the powers of the House of Lords. What does have force is the election of each MP to do their bit in being an operative parliament until for some reason this is so impossible that there is no government
But iirc the Starmer manifesto was so anodyne that there could be "interpretations" of things anyway.
Even a Land Tax was not ruled out in Starmer 2024 manifesto so could be argued was there in an unwritten way.
From 1865 to 1868 there were four prime ministers from three different parties, but no election.
1 - The use of the crime of swatting as a tactic, or whatever this is called where it is social services and children.
2 - There is also a question about the culture and practices of US law enforcement, which is I think deeper.
Has Trump commented? He has a longstanding practice of publicly demonising innocent individuals such as Court Clerks involved in his cases, which with his rhetoric contributes to a contemporary culture where violence is tolerated.
Trump's administration has also used threats of separation of children from their families as an intimidatory practice.
Especially as peak A/C demand in the future will correlate almost perfectly with peak solar supply, so we should be aiming for surplus power generation to be used.
Dan Hodges - Mail