Have you explained to them that their debt is tax and that you paid more tax at their age than they do?
Are you sure this is the case ?
Employer NI (13.8%) + Employee NI (12%) + PAYE (20%) + Student Loan (9%) on everything over 21,000 is a "decent" marginal tax rate.
What was the tax on 20k 30 years back and 45k for a plan II graduate now - those are reasonably comparable figures with inflation and so forth (And in terms of purchasing property the 20k went ALOT further than 45k today...) ?
My tables show the 'true tax' burden on a salary of 40k for a plan II graduate is 39% right now.
I worked it out for my own case a month or so back.
Roughly, in 1985 on my graduate starting salary of £8,500 a year, I lost 27% in tax and NI. That salary was 120% of the then average wage, so it's equivalent today would be £31k. On such a salary, a graduate today would pay 23% in tax and NI, a non-graduate 20%. They pay less, and when I was a graduate, non-graduates paid the same as graduates.
What they perceive as debt is just a tax that takes their tax up to less than their parents paid.
There is a good case for rebadging it as a graduate tax, however. What is stupid about it now is that the repayments are fixed at 9% of earnings above ~21k at the same time as the principal amount owed goes up because the interest rate on it is not fixed - it is some rate like 6%, which is a farcically high rate for long term borrowing stopped out of earnings. It should be something like BOE rate plus 0.25%, so that they can see it depleting.
Alice_Aforethought should be made Minister of Education.
She does make a lot of sense on this one... (first time for everything haha!)
If we oldies really want to make the youngsters jealous, tell 'em about MIRAS...
Lol tell them you could get double miras as a couple before 1988.Lawson ended it giving a future date , so a rush boom ensued then a collapse in the early nineties in house prices .Then to even it up tell them about the 15% interest rate and re possessions.Great times.
For consistency, any move to apply CGT to houses should be accompanied by the return of MIRAS, as in the USA.
Alice I did not know that .How does the CGT work ? Do they take the price of the house when you bought it to when you sell it.
CGT on a residential home (as opposed to 2nd properties and rentals) is what civil servants call "brave, minister".
Very in the UK .I hate paying 20% Vat on repairs and improvements to my own house.
VAT on building extensions must be raking in a fair bit of tax for the government from London home improvements such as basement extensions.
At least you don't have to pay VAT on the land which you already have. Plus the Council tax band is unchanged after the extension.
The Council Tax is not necessarily unchanged after the extension. I know because mine was increased by a band after we did some work.
It seems that if a neighbour makes a complaint that their Council Tax band is too high, given that they know yours is the same and now your house is a bit bigger, then there can be a reevaluation triggered of the example property. I forget all the finer details of how this worked, but we now have to pay more.
Plus I have spent the last four years trying to work out which of the neighbours pulled this stunt!!!
The Council tax band can change after an extension is built but should only be for the new owners after you move out.
which is £1,800 in today's money. Today TV recording is basically free off the likes of iPlayer.
I struggle to understand why anyone, whether Kipper or Corbynista, would want to live in the past. Having done so I am glad I no longer do.
We are living in your past.
Forgive me personalizing this, as it relates to all pre-2012 students to a greater - or slightly lesser (1998-2012) extent. But;
Your little bit of the national debt that the country took on to pay for your university tuition has come back to bite the country.
The government has asked the next generation to shoulder almost all of their own tuition fee burden as well as handing on the burden of repaying their elders tuition fee debt.
That's not right.
My preferred solution would be to backdate £9k student loans to all graduates. As that's not remotely politically possible, abolition - or substantial restructuring - of the post 2012 loans, with the bulk of the costs reclaimed through general taxation is the least unfair solution.
Tuition fees were a generational f*ckover. Voters voting to shield themselves from spending cuts/tax rises by lumping the burden on not-yet-voters.
Tuition fees at least are an exchange people knew about when they signed up to them. To backdate it would be despicable discrimination as it wasn't part of what was agreed when they went to it.
Actually, no.
The tories changed the T&C's (froze the threshold) for post-2012 students, so the amount they will pay back was increased relative to what they agreed when they signed up to the deal, age 16/17.
If they can be asked to pay more, then all pre-2012 students can, too.
As the tories are fond of saying;
We're all in this together.
They changed the deal after they had signed on the dotted line for the loan?
Yes. It's outrageous, isn't it?
If the tories treated their client vote like that, they'd be out of power for a generation - and rightly so.
Like they tried to do when abolishing the triple lock?
The triple lock is basically a bribe... there was never an contract written or unwritten that guaranteed a triple lock.
Just to get away from 1914, I think one thing John Charmley gets absolutely right is his argument that Britain was finished as a global strategic actor in 1940, not 1945. The decision to fight on alone despite there being no prospect of victory without allies and the exhaustion of foreign reserves in 1941 made us utterly dependent on US goodwill, supplies and money. What Charmley gets wrong is his argument that reaching an agreement with Hitler
If the government had taken this to heart, we could have avoided trying to maintain much larger forces and competing in technological arms races that we could never have afforded in the post war period. We should have concentrated on rebuilding our economic strength (as De Gaulle recognised) instead.
I think the ruling classes and man in the street were both deceived by the 'victory' of 1945. It was undoubtedly a moral victory, and the right thing to do, but a defeat in all other respects.
I'm not so sure. Yes, the Empire would have been wound up after WWII, but the UK could have maintained bases across the world, like the USA, had it been willing to pay the price in terms of blood and money. We preferred butter to guns. I'm not saying it was the wrong choice, but it was a choice that was open to us.
The power came from the prosperity. If you don't have that, you have nothing.
I beg to differ. A country needs sufficient prosperity to maintain its military-industrial complex, but it does not need to be very prosperous to be very powerful. Russia, for example, has always punched way above its economic weight, whether under the Czars, the Communists, or Putin, because of the priority it gives the armed forces.
I must disagree. I don't think Russia post 1991 is very powerful; whether on a economic, cultural influence or technological basis it is continuing to decline vis a vis the West and the other BRICs. It has an ability to be uniquely destructive, but it is unable to use that power to address its fundamental weaknesses (awful demographics, commodity dependence, brain drain).
Prioritising the armed forces fails when it bankrupts the underlying economy. This is a lesson they should have learnt from the USSR but clearly haven't.
To your earlier point, we did prefer guns! We spent billions to maintain military influence in areas remote from our core interests, far more than our European peers. As a consequence, we went from being the largest economy in Western Europe to 3rd (and briefly 4th).
Only up until the 1957 defence review. And the cutbacks that followed thereafter (and have pretty much continued ever since) were more a function of a loss of national self confidence than economics.
Richard_Tyndall said "We should go back to having a small number of the brightest and the best go to University with their courses paid for by the state on condition they then work for at least 5 (or more) years in the UK so making sure the country as a whole benefits from their success."
Roughly speaking I agree with that, only I'm not so sure about the "best". Anyway, do something like that and foster polytechnics and technical colleges too.
I was using brightest and best as a lazy catchphrase. But hopefully you get my meaning. Those who are academically suited should be given the opportunity of university, those who are not should have options that suit their strengths exactly as you say. We also need top massively increase apprenticeships so people can learn skills on the job.
A good example of the current idiocy would be nursing where we have now got rid of excellent nursing colleges and made them degree courses. Why?
OK. We might also allow for self support, extra curricular jobs, and scholarships (my case.) The bottom line should be that one *wants to* and *is able to* pursue studies.
30 years ago I went out with some Dutch people. At that time it was possible to go to Uni for free if they had been finanacially independent for 3 years, but it had to be paid for if aged 18.
In practice they did National Service and worked for a couple of years before going. It seems a good system, as a conscious decision had to be for uni rather than drifting aimlessly, and a more mature outlook on life and career. I wouldnt mind seeing such a system here.
If we oldies really want to make the youngsters jealous, tell 'em about MIRAS...
Lol tell them you could get double miras as a couple before 1988.Lawson ended it giving a future date , so a rush boom ensued then a collapse in the early nineties in house prices .Then to even it up tell them about the 15% interest rate and re possessions.Great times.
For consistency, any move to apply CGT to houses should be accompanied by the return of MIRAS, as in the USA.
Alice I did not know that .How does the CGT work ? Do they take the price of the house when you bought it to when you sell it.
CGT on a residential home (as opposed to 2nd properties and rentals) is what civil servants call "brave, minister".
Very in the UK .I hate paying 20% Vat on repairs and improvements to my own house.
VAT on building extensions must be raking in a fair bit of tax for the government from London home improvements such as basement extensions.
At least you don't have to pay VAT on the land which you already have. Plus the Council tax band is unchanged after the extension.
The Council Tax is not necessarily unchanged after the extension. I know because mine was increased by a band after we did some work.
It seems that if a neighbour makes a complaint that their Council Tax band is too high, given that they know yours is the same and now your house is a bit bigger, then there can be a reevaluation triggered of the example property. I forget all the finer details of how this worked, but we now have to pay more.
Plus I have spent the last four years trying to work out which of the neighbours pulled this stunt!!!
The Council tax band can change after an extension is built but should only be for the new owners after you move out.
The council messed up. As David_Evershed states there should be a flag on the council tax record saying that an improvement was made but it won't be applied until the council tax payer changes (or they reassess bands)...
Just to get away from 1914, I think one thing John Charmley gets absolutely right is his argument that Britain was finished as a global strategic actor in 1940, not 1945. The decision to fight on alone despite there being no prospect of victory without allies and the exhaustion of foreign reserves in 1941
If the government had taken this to heart, we could have avoided trying to maintain much largerin the post war period. We should have concentrated on rebuilding our economic strength (as De Gaulle recognised) instead.
I think the ruling classes and man in the street were both deceived by the 'victory' of 1945. It was undoubtedly a moral victory, and the right thing to do, but a defeat in all other respects.
I'm not so sure. Yes, the Empire would have been wound up after WWII, but the UK could have maintained bases across the world, like the USA, had it been willing to pay the price in terms of blood and money. We preferred butter to guns. I'm not saying it was the wrong choice, but it was a choice that was open to us.
The power came from the prosperity. If you don't have that, you have nothing.
I beg to differ. A country needs sufficient prosperity to maintain its military-industrial complex, but it does not need to be very prosperous to be very powerful. Russia, for example, has always punched way above its economic weight, whether under the Czars, the Communists, or Putin, because of the priority it gives the armed forces.
I must disagree. I don't think Russia post 1991 is very powerful; whether on a economic, cultural influence or technological basis it is continuing to decline vis a vis the West and the other BRICs. It has
Prioritising the armed forces fails when it bankrupts the underlying economy. This is a lesson they should have learnt from the USSR but clearly haven't.
To your earlier point, we did prefer guns! We spent billions to maintain military influence in areas remote from our core interests, far more than our European peers. As a consequence, we went from being the largest economy in Western Europe to 3rd (and briefly 4th).
Only up until the 1957 defence review. And the cutbacks that followed thereafter (and have pretty much continued ever since) were more a function of a loss of national self confidence than economics.
I think the events of 1956 showed that how many bases, ships and planes you have doesn't matter if you are dependent on another country's good will to avoid a collapse in your currency and import shortages.
Much of post-war British defence spending was laughably wasteful. Why did we need 3 V bomber designs?
Just to get away from 1914, I think one thing John Charmley gets absolutely right is his argument that Britain was finished as a global strategic actor in 1940, not 1945. The decision to fight on alone despite there being no prospect of victory without allies and the exhaustion of foreign reserves in 1941 made us utterly dependent on US goodwill, supplies and money. What Charmley gets wrong is his argument that reaching an agreement with Hitler
If the government had taken this to heart, we could have avoided trying to maintain much larger forces and competing in technological arms races that we could never have afforded in the post war period. We should have concentrated on rebuilding our economic strength (as De Gaulle recognised) instead.
I think the ruling classes and man in the street were both deceived by the 'victory' of 1945. It was undoubtedly a moral victory, and the right thing to do, but a defeat in all other respects.
I'm not so sure. Yes, the Empire would have been wound up after WWII, but the UK could have maintained bases across the world, like the USA, had it been willing to pay the price in terms of blood and money. We preferred butter to guns. I'm not saying it was the wrong choice, but it was a choice that was open to us.
The power came from the prosperity. If you don't have that, you have nothing.
I beg to differ. A country needs sufficient prosperity to maintain its military-industrial complex, but it does not need to be very prosperous to be very powerful. Russia, for example, has always punched way above its economic weight, whether under the Czars, the Communists, or Putin, because of the priority it gives the armed forces.
I must disagree. I don't think Russia post 1991 is very powerful; whether on a economic, cultural influence or technological basis it is continuing to decline vis a vis the West and the other BRICs. It has an ability to be uniquely destructive, but it is unable to use that power to address its fundamental weaknesses (awful demographics, commodity dependence, brain drain).
Prioritising the armed forces fails when it bankrupts the underlying economy. This is a lesson they
Only up until the 1957 defence review. And the cutbacks that followed thereafter (and have pretty much continued ever since) were more a function of a loss of national self confidence than economics.
We could have sat out the Korean War, but I'm glad we didn't.
Overall, it would make little difference to our economic performance whether we spent 2% of GDP or 4% on the armed forces.
Only up until the 1957 defence review. And the cutbacks that followed thereafter (and have pretty much continued ever since) were more a function of a loss of national self confidence than economics.
Would you have kept military spending approaching 10% of GDP then? What would you have done with this additional force?
Just to get away from 1914, I think one thing John Charmley gets absolutely right is his argument that Britain was finished as a global strategic actor in 1940, not 1945. The decision to fight on alone despite there being no prospect of victory without allies and the exhaustion of foreign reserves in 1941 made us utterly dependent on US goodwill, supplies and money. What Charmley gets wrong is his argument that reaching an agreement with Hitler
If the government had taken this to heart, we could have avoided trying to maintain much larger forces and competing in technological arms races that we could never have afforded in the post war period. We should have concentrated on rebuilding our economic strength (as De Gaulle recognised) instead.
I think the ruling classes and man in the street were both deceived by the 'victory' of 1945. It was undoubtedly a moral victory, and the right thing to do, but a defeat in all other respects.
I'm not so sure. Yes, the Empire would have been wound up after WWII, but the UK could have maintained bases across the world, like the USA, had it been willing to pay the price in terms of blood and money. We preferred butter to guns. I'm not saying it was the wrong choice, but it was a choice that was open to us.
The power came from the prosperity. If you don't have that, you have nothing.
I beg to differ. A country needs sufficient prosperity to maintain its military-industrial complex, but it does not need to be very prosperous to be very powerful. Russia, for example, has always punched way above its economic weight, whether under the Czars, the Communists, or Putin, because of the priority it gives the armed forces.
I must disagree. I don't think Russia post 1991 is very powerful; whether on a economic, cultural influence or technological basis it is continuing to decline vis a vis the West and the other BRICs. It has an ability to be uniquely destructive, but it is unable to use that power to address its fundamental weaknesses (awful demographics, commodity dependence, brain drain).
Prioritising the armed forces fails when it bankrupts the underlying economy. This is a lesson they
Only up until the 1957 defence review. And thehave re a function of a loss of national self confidence than economics.
We could have sat out the Korean War, but I'm glad we didn't.
Overall, it would make little difference to our economic performance whether we spent 2% of GDP or 4% on the armed forces.
We could have sat out the Korean War, but I'm glad we didn't.
Overall, it would make little difference to our economic performance whether we spent 2% of GDP or 4% on the armed forces.
2% compounded over decades adds up to a lot.
Yes it's odd to hear this kind of argument from the kind of people who like to attribute Germany's economic success to being denied the burden of a large military.
Just to get away from 1914, I think one thing John Charmley gets absolutely right is his argument that Britain was finished as a global strategic actor in 1940, not 1945. The decision to fight on alone despite there being no prospect of victory without allies and the exhaustion of foreign reserves in 1941 made us utterly dependent on US goodwill, supplies and money. What Charmley gets wrong is his argument that reaching an agreement with Hitler
If the government had taken this to heart, we could have avoided trying to maintain much larger forces and competing in technological arms races that we could never have afforded in the post war period. We should have concentrated on rebuilding our economic strength (as De Gaulle recognised) instead.
I think the ruling classes and man in the street were both deceived by the 'victory' of 1945. It was undoubtedly a moral victory, and the right thing to do, but a defeat in all other respects.
I'm not so sure. Yes, the Empire would have been wound up after WWII, but the was a choice that was open to us.
The power came from the prosperity. If you don't have that, you have nothing.
I beg to differ. A country needs sufficient prosperity to maintain its military-industrial complex, but it does not need to be very prosperous to be very powerful. Russia, for example, has always punched way above its economic weight, whether under the Czars, the Communists, or Putin, because of the priority it gives the armed forces.
I must disagree. I don't think Russia post 1991 is very powerful; whether on a economic, cultural influence or technological basis it is continuing to decline vis a vis the West and the other BRICs. It has an ability to be uniquely destructive, but it is unable to use that power to address its fundamental weaknesses (awful demographics, commodity dependence, brain drain).
Prioritising the armed forces fails when it bankrupts the underlying economy. This is a lesson they
Only up until the 1957 defence review. And thehave re a function of a loss of national self confidence than economics.
We could have sat out the Korean War, but I'm glad we didn't.
Overall, it would make little difference to our economic performance whether we spent 2% of GDP or 4% on the armed forces.
2% compounded over decades adds up to a lot.
There may well be better ways of spending that 2%, but it's very much a First World problem.
Only up until the 1957 defence review. And the cutbacks that followed thereafter (and have pretty much continued ever since) were more a function of a loss of national self confidence than economics.
Would you have kept military spending approaching 10% of GDP then? What would you have done with this additional force?
Only up until the 1957 defence review. And the cutbacks that followed thereafter (and have pretty much continued ever since) were more a function of a loss of national self confidence than economics.
Would you have kept military spending approaching 10% of GDP then? What would you have done with this additional force?
Liquidated the EEC.
You really do seek a cathartic defeat at the hands of the Europeans...
We could have sat out the Korean War, but I'm glad we didn't.
Overall, it would make little difference to our economic performance whether we spent 2% of GDP or 4% on the armed forces.
2% compounded over decades adds up to a lot.
Yes it's odd to hear this kind of argument from the kind of people who like to attribute Germany's economic success to being denied the burden of a large military.
Just to get away from 1914, I think one thing John Charmley gets absolutely right is his argument that Britain was finished as a global strategic actor in 1940, not 1945. The decision to fight on alone despite there being no prospect of victory without allies and the exhaustion of foreign reserves in 1941 made us utterly dependent on US goodwill, supplies and money. What Charmley gets wrong is his argument that reaching an agreement with Hitler
If the government had taken this to heart, we could have avoided trying to maintain much larger forces and competing in technological arms races that we could never have afforded in the post war period. We should have concentrated on rebuilding our economic strength (as De Gaulle recognised) instead.
I think the ruling classes and man in the street were both deceived by the 'victory' of 1945. It was undoubtedly a moral victory, and the right thing to do, but a defeat in all other respects.
I'm not so sure. Yes, the Empire would have been wound up after WWII, but the was a choice that was open to us.
The power came from the prosperity. If you don't have that, you have nothing.
I beg to differ. A country needs sufficient prosperity to maintain its military-industrial complex, but it does not need to be very prosperous to be very powerful. Russia, for example, has always punched way above its economic weight, whether under the Czars, the Communists, or Putin, because of the priority it gives the armed forces.
I must disagree. I don't think Russia post 1991 is very powerful; whether on a economic, cultural influence or technological basis it is continuing to decline vis a vis the West and the other BRICs. It has an ability to be uniquely destructive, but Prioritising the armed forces fails when it bankrupts the underlying economy. This is a lesson they
Only up until the 1957 defence review. And thehave re a function of a loss of national self confidence than economics.
We could have sat out the Korean War, but I'm glad we didn't.
Overall, it would make little difference to our economic performance whether we spent 2% of GDP or 4% on the armed forces.
2% compounded over decades adds up to a lot.
There may well be better ways of spending that 2%, but it's very much a First World problem.
Sigh. Never let it be said that complacency on the part of unions AND management played a role in Britain's industrial decline.
I don't think this saga over Corbyn and student debt make much of a difference to support from young people. What could is if a viable, attractive alternative emerged to challenge Corbyn.
I was reading Hugo Rifkind's article in the Times today (Scott_P's tweet earlier on led me that way) and one thing I was struck by, reading the comments was the antipathy they had towards young voters calling us 'children' 'snowflakes' making the usual snide 'safe space' remark. This kind of attitude isn't going to get those who are anti-Corbyn very far.
I don't think this saga over Corbyn and student debt make much of a difference to support from young people. What could is if a viable, attractive alternative emerged to challenge Corbyn.
I was reading Hugo Rifkind's article in the Times today (Scott_P's tweet earlier on led me that way) and one thing I was struck by, reading the comments was the antipathy they had towards young voters calling us 'children' 'snowflakes' making the usual snide 'safe space' remark. This kind of attitude isn't going to get those who are anti-Corbyn very far.
Great essay by Mr. Meeks. History is not my metier, but I seem to recall from History 101 that one aspect of WW one was that mobilising an armed force was ponderous and slow (at least in Russia'a case) , gaining a kind of momentum of its own. Would our indecision and internal friction not be getting out of control?
Anecdotally, a friend back from a German visit said a businessman there was stricken with worry over Brexit, whereas another friend, back from France, said they are just laughing at us.
Just to get away from 1914, I think one thing John Charmley gets absolutely right is his argument that Britain was finished as a global strategic actor in 1940, not 1945. The decision to fight on alone despite there being no prospect of victory without allies and the exhaustion of foreign reserves in 1941 made us utterly dependent on US goodwill, supplies and money. What Charmley gets ognised) instead.
I think the ruling classes and man in the street were both deceived by the 'victory' of 1945. It was undoubtedly a moral victory, and the right thing to do, but a defeat in all other respects.
I'm not so sure. Yes, the Empire would have been wound up after WWII, but the was a choice that was open to us.
The power came from the prosperity. If you don't have that, you have nothing.
I beg to differ. A country needs sufficient prosperity tpriority it gives the armed forces.
I must disagree. I don't think Russia post 1991 is very powerful; whether on a economic, cultural influence or technological basis it is continuing to decline vis a vis the West and the other BRICs. It has an ability to be uniquely destructive, but Prioritising the armed forces fails when it bankrupts the underlying economy. This is a lesson they
Only up until the 1957 defence review. And thehave re a function of a loss of national self confidence than economics.
We could have sat out the Korean War, but I'm glad we didn't.
Overall, it would make little difference to our economic performance whether we spent 2% of GDP or 4% on the armed forces.
2% compounded over decades adds up to a lot.
There may well be better ways of spending that 2%, but it's very much a First World problem.
Sigh. Never let it be said that complacency on the part of unions AND management played a role in Britain's industrial decline.
Ah well, at least air shows were fun!
At the same time we spent vast sums on the armed forces, we were told correctly that we had "never had it so good". By the mid-seventies, real incomes per head were double the level of 1945.
Because the Empire went, we embraced a belief in national decline that was never justified by the facts.
Mr Meeks - the trainwreck that is Brexit might not make the top five really bad things that politicians are getting wrong. Think about the threat of war (NK say), environment, aging, debt, overpopulation. The environment has several sub-categories that are more important than whatever happens in the EU. Perhaps they all do.
You're right that the politicians are making a mess of what should be pretty simple in outline (the detail was always going to be a nightmare, but getting the big picture wrong is stupid).
Incidentally, the cause of WW1 is probably the most well understood of historical themes.
I don't think this saga over Corbyn and student debt make much of a difference to support from young people. What could is if a viable, attractive alternative emerged to challenge Corbyn.
I was reading Hugo Rifkind's article in the Times today (Scott_P's tweet earlier on led me that way) and one thing I was struck by, reading the comments was the antipathy they had towards young voters calling us 'children' 'snowflakes' making the usual snide 'safe space' remark. This kind of attitude isn't going to get those who are anti-Corbyn very far.
You are such a snowflake! (only kidding! )
Ah, I do wear my heart of my sleeve, although in that sense I'm very similar to my mum!
Richard_Tyndall said "We should go back to having a small number of the brightest and the best go to University with their courses paid for by the state on condition they then work for at least 5 (or more) years in the UK so making sure the country as a whole benefits from their success."
Roughly speaking I agree with that, only I'm not so sure about the "best". Anyway, do something like that and foster polytechnics and technical colleges too.
I was using brightest and best as a lazy catchphrase. But hopefully you get my meaning. Those who are academically suited should be given the opportunity of university, those who are not should have options that suit their strengths exactly as you say. We also need top massively increase apprenticeships so people can learn skills on the job.
A good example of the current idiocy would be nursing where we have now got rid of excellent nursing colleges and made them degree courses. Why?
OK. We might also allow for self support, extra curricular jobs, and scholarships (my case.) The bottom line should be that one *wants to* and *is able to* pursue studies.
30 years ago I went out with some Dutch people. At that time it was possible to go to Uni for free if they had been finanacially independent for 3 years, but it had to be paid for if aged 18.
In practice they did National Service and worked for a couple of years before going. It seems a good system, as a conscious decision had to be for uni rather than drifting aimlessly, and a more mature outlook on life and career. I wouldnt mind seeing such a system here.
When I was working for a French company back in the early 90s I always preferred French, Dutch or Norwegian trainees to British ones. If you sent a non Brit to do a job and they couldn't do it they would come back after 20 minutes or half an hour and ask for help. If you sent a Brit to do it they would come back after 20 minutes and say it wasn't possible.
British graduates going into the job market - particularly in a job that requires independent thought and getting ones hands dirty - with no previous work experience really are very poor generally. At least in comparison to their continental peers. The difference as far as I could see was national service - not necessarily military but just the fact of having to do a physical job instead of moving straight through academia to graduation.
More Remoaner nonsense on here today I see. In the real world, and not the fantasy world of the Remoaners, BMW, Easyjet and Amazon have all announced expansion plans in the UK. That's particularly funny in the case of Easyjet that warned that all hell would break loose with Brexit. I love Easyjet for short European city breaks, but they really did make t*ts out of themselves over Brexit. The Remoaners give me the impression that they think everything in the EU is absolutely perfect, well this article for starters may give them cause to review their misguided thinking process:
Only up until the 1957 defence review. And the cutbacks that followed thereafter (and have pretty much continued ever since) were more a function of a loss of national self confidence than economics.
Would you have kept military spending approaching 10% of GDP then? What would you have done with this additional force?
Liquidated the EEC.
You really do seek a cathartic defeat at the hands of the Europeans...
On a serious note, defence spending of 8-9% of GDP, continuing into the 1960s and 1970s, would have given the UK strategic independence in foreign policy with an ability to mount combined land air/sea operations by itself, probably involving forces of a corps/II corps interventions, without necessarily relying on the Americans.
It would have allowed the UK to maintain a Mediterranean fleet, as well as an Atlantic/home fleet, maintain bases in the middle east, probably in Aden, and in the Far East in Singapore/Hong Kong. And probably resulted in more regular African interventions as well. It would have kept the UK at the leading edge of aviation, ship design and missile development.
It would have meant the UK had much more leverage over conflicts like Vietnam and Cambodia, and in Chinese relations, and a more equal voice in middle eastern oil politics.
It would have come at the cost of healthcare and welfare.
I see BMW and Amazon are obviously not readers of PB.
Together with the CBI survey this might be an indicator of economic improvement:
' A shortage of industrial space is threatening to curb British manufacturing after UK businesses experienced a post-Brexit vote boom brought about by the weakened pound.
The UK has a little over one year’s worth of industrial space left thanks to a rush to secure new or larger premises by British companies, according to new data from real estate advisers Colliers International.
The manufacturing sector now accounts for 27pc of the industrial property market, up from 19pc in 2016, making it second only to retailers and wholesalers who account for about a third of the market.
Bo Glowacz, senior research analyst at Colliers International, said: “Following the outcome of the European referendum, there has been stronger demand for industrial space from the manufacturing sector due to the weakening value of sterling encouraging a surge in demand for British goods.” '
It is just amazing to watch the Trump presidency unfolding in the US. It looks like he is now paving the way to fire his attorney general so that he can appoint another one who will bring the Russian investigations to an end. These are extraordinary times to be living through.
Watching C4 news on getting in from work. No friend of Trump but blimey. I think we have problems with May hunkering down in 10 Downing Street but our problems are not even close to those that the US has at the moment.
On topic, it's my view the UK should be spending (today) about 3% of GDP on defence and a further 0.5% (rough average, over 10 years) on softer stuff like international aid, if it wishes to properly fund the aspirations we have as a 2nd tier global power. I.e. a "tipping point" ally who can make a real difference, in international situations both soft and hard.
That won't happen, of course, and wouldn't have if we'd stayed in the EU either, but we will continue to try and fudge it by puffing up our chests and figures.
Only up until the 1957 defence review. And the cutbacks that followed thereafter (and have pretty much continued ever since) were more a function of a loss of national self confidence than economics.
Would you have kept military spending approaching 10% of GDP then? What would you have done with this additional force?
Liquidated the EEC.
You really do seek a cathartic defeat at the hands of the Europeans...
On a serious note, defence spending of 8-9% of GDP, continuing into the 1960s and 1970s, would have given the UK strategic independence in foreign policy with an ability to mount combined land air/sea operations by itself, probably involving forces of a corps/II corps interventions, without necessarily relying on the Americans.
It would have allowed the UK to maintain a Mediterranean fleet, as well as an Atlantic/home fleet, maintain bases in the middle east, probably in Aden, and in the Far East in Singapore/Hong Kong. And probably resulted in more regular African interventions as well. It would have kept the UK at the leading edge of aviation, ship design and missile development.
It would have meant the UK had much more leverage over conflicts like Vietnam and Cambodia, and in Chinese relations, and a more equal voice in middle eastern oil politics.
It would have come at the cost of healthcare and welfare.
A kind of Gaullism without the economic weight of the EEC behind it. It would have ended in tears.
Only up until the 1957 defence review. And the cutbacks that followed thereafter (and have pretty much continued ever since) were more a function of a loss of national self confidence than economics.
Would you have kept military spending approaching 10% of GDP then? What would you have done with this additional force?
Liquidated the EEC.
You really do seek a cathartic defeat at the hands of the Europeans...
On a serious note, defence spending of 8-9% of GDP, continuing into the 1960s and 1970s, would have given the UK strategic independence in foreign policy with an ability to mount combined land air/sea operations by itself, probably involving forces of a corps/II corps interventions, without necessarily relying on the Americans.
It would have allowed the UK to maintain a Mediterranean fleet, as well as an Atlantic/home fleet, maintain bases in the middle east, probably in Aden, and in the Far East in Singapore/Hong Kong. And probably resulted in more regular African interventions as well. It would have kept the UK at the leading edge of aviation, ship design and missile development.
It would have meant the UK had much more leverage over conflicts like Vietnam and Cambodia, and in Chinese relations, and a more equal voice in middle eastern oil politics.
It would have come at the cost of healthcare and welfare.
Fortunately I only lived around 13 days under the 2nd Wilson premiership (giving away my date of birth there!) and he got most big decisions wrong......apart from the Open University and staying out of Vietnam (well largely so although we did have a few secret operations there). How you think we would have been better off with 8-9% of defence spending and getting involved in the quagmire of Vietnam is beyond me, thank goodness we pretty much remained out of that one.
On topic, it's my view the UK should be spending (today) about 3% of GDP on defence and a further 0.5% (rough average, over 10 years) on softer stuff like international aid, if it wishes to properly fund the aspirations we have as a 2nd tier global power. I.e. a "tipping point" ally who can make a real difference, in international situations both soft and hard.
That won't happen, of course, and wouldn't have if we'd stayed in the EU either, but we will continue to try and fudge it by puffing up our chests and figures.
We'll end up joining the nascent European defence initiatives.
You can have all that you desire via an acceptance that it can only be achieved by uniting Old Europe.
I'm not so sure. Yes, the Empire would have been wound up after WWII, but the was a choice that was open to us.
The power came from the prosperity. If you don't have that, you have nothing.
I beg to differ. A country needs sufficient prosperity tpriority it gives the armed forces.
I must disagree. I don't think Russia post 1991 is very powerful; whether on a economic, cultural influence or technological basis it is continuing to decline vis a vis the West and the other BRICs. It has an ability to be uniquely destructive, but Prioritising the armed forces fails when it bankrupts the underlying economy. This is a lesson they
Only up until the 1957 defence review. And thehave re a function of a loss of national self confidence than economics.
We could have sat out the Korean War, but I'm glad we didn't.
Overall, it would make little difference to our economic performance whether we spent 2% of GDP or 4% on the armed forces.
2% compounded over decades adds up to a lot.
There may well be better ways of spending that 2%, but it's very much a First World problem.
Sigh. Never let it be said that complacency on the part of unions AND management played a role in Britain's industrial decline.
Ah well, at least air shows were fun!
At the same time we spent vast sums on the armed forces, we were told correctly that we had "never had it so good". By the mid-seventies, real incomes per head were double the level of 1945.
Because the Empire went, we embraced a belief in national decline that was never justified by the facts.
We wanted to be as important as China, the Soviet Union and the USA, and playing the game at an equal level to all of them.
That's very, very difficult for a small island off the coast of Europe, with our small population and economy, unless you can leverage something big, like an Empire, or unite the Anglosphere.
It's humiliating because we could still play that game up until 60 years ago, and we were culturally and politically used to it, and we haven't really been able to since.
On topic, it's my view the UK should be spending (today) about 3% of GDP on defence and a further 0.5% (rough average, over 10 years) on softer stuff like international aid, if it wishes to properly fund the aspirations we have as a 2nd tier global power. I.e. a "tipping point" ally who can make a real difference, in international situations both soft and hard.
That won't happen, of course, and wouldn't have if we'd stayed in the EU either, but we will continue to try and fudge it by puffing up our chests and figures.
We'll end up joining the nascent European defence initiatives.
You can have all that you desire via an acceptance that it can only be achieved by uniting Old Europe.
Richard_Tyndall said "We should go back to having a small number of the brightest and the best go to University with their courses paid for by the state on condition they then work for at least 5 (or more) years in the UK so making sure the country as a whole benefits from their success."
Roughly speaking I agree with that, only I'm not so sure about the "best". Anyway, do something like that and foster polytechnics and technical colleges too.
I was using brightest and best as a lazy catchphrase. But hopefully you get my meaning. Those who are academically suited should be given the opportunity of university, those who are not should have options that suit their strengths exactly as you say. We also need top massively increase apprenticeships so people can learn skills on the job.
A good example of the current idiocy would be nursing where we have now got rid of excellent nursing colleges and made them degree courses. Why?
OK. We might also allow for self support, extra curricular jobs, and scholarships (my case.) The bottom line should be that one *wants to* and *is able to* pursue studies.
30 years ago I went out with some Dutch people. At that time it was possible to go to Uni for free if they had been finanacially independent for 3 years, but it had to be paid for if aged 18.
In practice they did National Service and worked for a couple of years before going. It seems a good system, as a conscious decision had to be for uni rather than drifting aimlessly, and a more mature outlook on life and career. I wouldnt mind seeing such a system here.
That does sound pretty good.
It would also allow the potential student to get some experience of work in their expected field of study and so reduce the risk of them doing something to which they're not suited.
On topic, it's my view the UK should be spending (today) about 3% of GDP on defence and a further 0.5% (rough average, over 10 years) on softer stuff like international aid, if it wishes to properly fund the aspirations we have as a 2nd tier global power. I.e. a "tipping point" ally who can make a real difference, in international situations both soft and hard.
That won't happen, of course, and wouldn't have if we'd stayed in the EU either, but we will continue to try and fudge it by puffing up our chests and figures.
We'll end up joining the nascent European defence initiatives.
You can have all that you desire via an acceptance that it can only be achieved by uniting Old Europe.
Will I achieve the pinnacle of success in my career as well, with children who laud me, a wife who adores me, and cooks for me every evening, and hordes of wellwishers beating a path to my door every Sunday to sing my praises?
We wanted to be as important as China, the Soviet Union and the USA, and playing the game at an equal level to all of them.
That's very, very difficult for a small island off the coast of Europe, with our small population and economy, unless you can leverage something big, like an Empire, or unite the Anglosphere.
It's humiliating because we could still play that game up until 60 years ago, and we were culturally and politically used to it, and we haven't really been able to since.
It was that false view that we could no longer have our own place in the world that led us to the idiotic decision to become a third rate country in the burgeoning EU federation. It was a dumb decision then and remains a dumb decision today.
On topic, it's my view the UK should be spending (today) about 3% of GDP on defence and a further 0.5% (rough average, over 10 years) on softer stuff like international aid, if it wishes to properly fund the aspirations we have as a 2nd tier global power. I.e. a "tipping point" ally who can make a real difference, in international situations both soft and hard.
That won't happen, of course, and wouldn't have if we'd stayed in the EU either, but we will continue to try and fudge it by puffing up our chests and figures.
We'll end up joining the nascent European defence initiatives.
You can have all that you desire via an acceptance that it can only be achieved by uniting Old Europe.
Will I achieve the pinnacle of success in my career as well, with children who laud me, a wife who adores me, and cooks for me every evening, and hordes of wellwishers beating a path to my door every Sunday to sing my praises?
Yes, you'll be the model of a modern European family. A union of two people from either side of the continent living the European dream.
Only up until the 1957 defence review. And the cutbacks that followed thereafter (and have pretty much continued ever since) were more a function of a loss of national self confidence than economics.
Would you have kept military spending approaching 10% of GDP then? What would you have done with this additional force?
Liquidated the EEC.
You really do seek a cathartic defeat at the hands of the Europeans...
On a serious note, defence spending of 8-9% of GDP, continuing into the 1960s and 1970s, would have given the UK strategic independence in foreign policy with an ability to mount combined land air/sea operations by itself, probably involving forces of a corps/II corps interventions, without necessarily relying on the Americans.
It would have allowed the UK to maintain a Mediterranean fleet, as well as an Atlantic/home fleet, maintain bases in the middle east, probably in Aden, and in the Far East in Singapore/Hong Kong. And probably resulted in more regular African interventions as well. It would have kept the UK at the leading edge of aviation, ship design and missile development.
It would have meant the UK had much more leverage over conflicts like Vietnam and Cambodia, and in Chinese relations, and a more equal voice in middle eastern oil politics.
It would have come at the cost of healthcare and welfare.
Fortunately I only lived around 13 days under the 2nd Wilson premiership (giving away my date of birth there!) and he got most big decisions wrong......apart from the Open University and staying out of Vietnam (well largely so although we did have a few secret operations there). How you think we would have been better off with 8-9% of defence spending and getting involved in the quagmire of Vietnam is beyond me, thank goodness we pretty much remained out of that one.
I am personally willing to pay the high price required for the UK to have a major say in the development of the future course of humanity, with us having the ability to both steer and pull levers, which I think is crucial given we have <1% of the global population. And I would vote for it too.
On topic, it's my view the UK should be spending (today) about 3% of GDP on defence and a further 0.5% (rough average, over 10 years) on softer stuff like international aid, if it wishes to properly fund the aspirations we have as a 2nd tier global power. I.e. a "tipping point" ally who can make a real difference, in international situations both soft and hard.
That won't happen, of course, and wouldn't have if we'd stayed in the EU either, but we will continue to try and fudge it by puffing up our chests and figures.
We'll end up joining the nascent European defence initiatives.
You can have all that you desire via an acceptance that it can only be achieved by uniting Old Europe.
Will I achieve the pinnacle of success in my career as well, with children who laud me, a wife who adores me, and cooks for me every evening, and hordes of wellwishers beating a path to my door every Sunday to sing my praises?
Yes, you'll be the model of a modern European family. A union of two people from either side of the continent living the European dream.
On topic, it's my view the UK should be spending (today) about 3% of GDP on defence and a further 0.5% (rough average, over 10 years) on softer stuff like international aid, if it wishes to properly fund the aspirations we have as a 2nd tier global power. I.e. a "tipping point" ally who can make a real difference, in international situations both soft and hard.
That won't happen, of course, and wouldn't have if we'd stayed in the EU either, but we will continue to try and fudge it by puffing up our chests and figures.
We'll end up joining the nascent European defence initiatives.
You can have all that you desire via an acceptance that it can only be achieved by uniting Old Europe.
Military success depends far more on a readiness to take casualties than a proliferation of brass hats. EU defence initiatives involve the latter.
We wanted to be as important as China, the Soviet Union and the USA, and playing the game at an equal level to all of them.
That's very, very difficult for a small island off the coast of Europe, with our small population and economy, unless you can leverage something big, like an Empire, or unite the Anglosphere.
It's humiliating because we could still play that game up until 60 years ago, and we were culturally and politically used to it, and we haven't really been able to since.
It was that false view that we could no longer have our own place in the world that led us to the idiotic decision to become a third rate country in the burgeoning EU federation. It was a dumb decision then and remains a dumb decision today.
Without a vast Empire, the UK reverted to the sort of influence it had c.1700. Not bestriding the World like a colossus, but not trivial either.
You really do seek a cathartic defeat at the hands of the Europeans...
On a serious note ... welfare.
Fortunately I only lived around 13 days under the 2nd Wilson premiership (giving away my date of birth there!) and he got most big decisions wrong......apart from the Open University and staying out of Vietnam (well largely so although we did have a few secret operations there). How you think we would have been better off with 8-9% of defence spending and getting involved in the quagmire of Vietnam is beyond me, thank goodness we pretty much remained out of that one.
I am personally willing to pay the high price required for the UK to have a major say in the development of the future course of humanity, with us having the ability to both steer and pull levers, which I think is crucial given we have <1% of the global population. And I would vote for it too.
But, I accept that's a minority view today.</p>
i broadly agree with you on increasing defence spending to 3% of GDP in the current volatile geopolitical climate, but that's never going to happen in a month of Sunday's given the 2% of GDP spending commitment, thanks to being part of the EU military union.......of which most of the general public would be horrified if they knew the details, including I daresay a fair chunk of the 48% who voted to remain last year. We've just spent £3bn on an aircraft carrier without any thought to the necessary fleet including destroyers backing it up, or aircraft that are compatible with it.......but heck that's all part of the plan that none of the EU states will individually have a joined up military capability, so that they have to mesh together as part of the wider EU military union. They're perfectly open about the intention if you go to France and Germany, I wonder why we don't have the same openness about what our government is doing to our defence forces here. It doesn't take too many brain cells to work out why.
Having said that, I have absolutely no desire for our defence forces to get involved overseas, unless it is an obvious threat to our national security. Our adventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan but to name a few in recent years have been an unmitigated disaster. We still think of ourselves as a global military power as a hangover of our empire days. Its been long overdue to update that outdated mindset, and exercise soft power in a responsible way. Not that we have been doing that in recent years, with BBC World being one of the major culprits of putting out fake news in many countries.
Christopher Clark's magnificent account of the causal complexities of the origins of the First World War suggests a complementary perspective to those put forward in Alastair Meeks thoughtful piece. Before the military plans started to clank inexorably forward, it was the multiplicity of actors each with different and often shifting perspectives which provide the parallel with Brexit. Nobody was in control, nobody understood what was happening. It was an incredibly complex and unpredictable causal system.
The process of negotiation itself, developments within the UK, within each of the UK's parties, politics within the EU machine, within the other 27 nations. All with a greater or lesser degree of unpredictability. All with the potential to collide to produce a causal avalanche in any of several directions - producing outcomes which no one wants and certainly can't predict.
Ian Jack had a lovely discussion of this last November. Google 'Ian Jack Brexit Sleepwalkers'.
I need to buy seeds from foodsforliberty.com to prepare for the upcoming grand solar minimum?
Is this something I should worry about?
Thanks Pong - in short yes it is something we should all be concerned about. We got a little foretaste of what is to come in February, when you couldn't get courgettes and other vegetables in our supermarkets when the supply from Spain was largely wiped out by extremely severe frosts. Historically cold eras have coincided with the fall of empires eg the Quing and Ming dynasties in China died out at times of grand solar minimums. I think there will be serious global food shortages, perhaps as early as 2019. Its an open question as to how serious this grand solar minimum will be. John Casey and other solar physicists believe it will be similar to the Dalton minimum in the early 1800's, others like the Russians led by Professor Abdussamatov believe it will be equivalent to the Maunder minimum from 1640-1715 in the UK, a time when the Thames routinely froze each winter. And it was a time when grain ships had to have military escorts, such was the shortage of food and the desperation of many in the population to avoid starvation. As ever, do your own research.
I need to buy seeds from foodsforliberty.com to prepare for the upcoming grand solar minimum?
Is this something I should worry about?
Thanks Pong - in short yes it is something we should all be concerned about. We got a little foretaste of what is to come in February, when you couldn't get courgettes and other vegetables in our supermarkets when the supply from Spain was largely wiped out by extremely severe frosts. Historically cold eras have coincided with the fall of empires eg the Quing and Ming dynasties in China died out at times of grand solar minimums. I think there will be serious global food shortages, perhaps as early as 2019. Its an open question as to how serious this grand solar minimum will be. John Casey and other solar physicists believe it will be similar to the Dalton minimum in the early 1800's, others like the Russians led by Professor Abdussamatov believe it will be equivalent to the Maunder minimum from 1640-1715 in the UK, a time when the Thames routinely froze each winter. And it was a time when grain ships had to have military escorts, such was the shortage of food and the desperation of many in the population to avoid starvation. As ever, do your own research.
I need to buy seeds from foodsforliberty.com to prepare for the upcoming grand solar minimum?
Is this something I should worry about?
Thanks Pong - in short yes it is something we should all be concerned about. We got a little foretaste of what is to come in February, when you couldn't get courgettes and other vegetables in our supermarkets when the supply from Spain was largely wiped out by extremely severe frosts. Historically cold eras have coincided with the fall of empires eg the Quing and Ming dynasties in China died out at times of grand solar minimums. I think there will be serious global food shortages, perhaps as early as 2019. Its an open question as to how serious this grand solar minimum will be. John Casey and other solar physicists believe it will be similar to the Dalton minimum in the early 1800's, others like the Russians led by Professor Abdussamatov believe it will be equivalent to the Maunder minimum from 1640-1715 in the UK, a time when the Thames routinely froze each winter. And it was a time when grain ships had to have military escorts, such was the shortage of food and the desperation of many in the population to avoid starvation. As ever, do your own research.
If this is happening despite minimums in the Sun's output we have a serious problem on our hands because the full effects of warming may well be being disguised by countervailing factors. When that minimum passes temperatures may accelerate very rapidly and beyond our ability to respond.
There is of course a lot of crap written in the media about global warming and supposed causes and effects. It may be that these volcanoes are an example. But that crap does not undermine the central premise. It would be astonishing if the activities of man over the last millennium did not have a material effect on global temperatures. Millions of years of carbon capture have been reversed in the blink of an eye in geological terms.
I need to buy seeds from foodsforliberty.com to prepare for the upcoming grand solar minimum?
Is this something I should worry about?
Thanks Pong - in short yes it is something we should all be concerned about. We got a little foretaste of what is to come in February, when you couldn't get courgettes and other vegetables in our supermarkets when the supply from Spain was largely wiped out by extremely severe frosts. Historically cold eras have coincided with the fall of empires eg the Quing and Ming dynasties in China died out at times of grand solar minimums. I think there will be serious global food shortages, perhaps as early as 2019. Its an open question as to how serious this grand solar minimum will be. John Casey and other solar physicists believe it will be similar to the Dalton minimum in the early 1800's, others like the Russians led by Professor Abdussamatov believe it will be equivalent to the Maunder minimum from 1640-1715 in the UK, a time when the Thames routinely froze each winter. And it was a time when grain ships had to have military escorts, such was the shortage of food and the desperation of many in the population to avoid starvation. As ever, do your own research.
How is that sovereign debt crisis going hunchman?
I'm agreed with Martin Armstrong that it starts towards the end of this year and gets going in earnest next year ie 2018. The next (minor) turn date on his model is around the 25th November in 4 months time IIRC. We've seen a Greek government debt offering 2x subscribed for in a world still hungry for yield, and investors prepared to lend to Argentina for 100 years in the past month. Such madness is a sure sign of a bubble top forming in sovereign government debt don't you think?
Meanwhile here is another wonderful YouTube video about EU corruption, from a man who was allegedly murdered in the year following this speech in 2009:
Great essay by Mr. Meeks. History is not my metier, but I seem to recall from History 101 that one aspect of WW one was that mobilising an armed force was ponderous and slow (at least in Russia'a case) , gaining a kind of momentum of its own. Would our indecision and internal friction not be getting out of control?
Anecdotally, a friend back from a German visit said a businessman there was stricken with worry over Brexit, whereas another friend, back from France, said they are just laughing at us.
The German plans were based on a two front war being unwinnable, so had to defeat France before the Russians mobilised, which they expected to be slow.
Actually the Russians mobilised rapidly and invaded Prussia even before the Western campaign had failed, and Germany did well on a two front war, but got defeated when it went to one front.
Putting Lenin on that train to Petrograd was probably the single dumbest move the Germans made. Europe (and Germany in particular) would be a very different place if the Bolsheviks hadn't got their hands on power. Expectations and plans often don't survive contact with the enemy.
We wanted to be as important as China, the Soviet Union and the USA, and playing the game at an equal level to all of them.
That's very, very difficult for a small island off the coast of Europe, with our small population and economy, unless you can leverage something big, like an Empire, or unite the Anglosphere.
It's humiliating because we could still play that game up until 60 years ago, and we were culturally and politically used to it, and we haven't really been able to since.
It was that false view that we could no longer have our own place in the world that led us to the idiotic decision to become a third rate country in the burgeoning EU federation. It was a dumb decision then and remains a dumb decision today.
Without a vast Empire, the UK reverted to the sort of influence it had c.1700. Not bestriding the World like a colossus, but not trivial either.
Indeed. My view is that we neither need nor should want to be ruling an Empire - even a small one - nor telling other countries how to run their affairs. The EU is engaging in a struggle with countries like India and China which it is absolutely certain to lose. The smart thing to do is find our own niche in the new world and exploit it to our own benefit. Let others worry about throwing their weight around and telling other countries what to do.
If this is happening despite minimums in the Sun's output we have a serious problem on our hands because the full effects of warming may well be being disguised by countervailing factors. When that minimum passes temperatures may accelerate very rapidly and beyond our ability to respond.
There is of course a lot of crap written in the media about global warming and supposed causes and effects. It may be that these volcanoes are an example. But that crap does not undermine the central premise. It would be astonishing if the activities of man over the last millennium did not have a material effect on global temperatures. Millions of years of carbon capture have been reversed in the blink of an eye in geological terms.
How do you explain all the recent cold weather eg South America including snow in Santiago which is rare, snow on top of Table Mountain which is pretty rare, crops wiped out in Europe in late April including half of French vineyards and aforementioned Courgettes in Spain. A miserable cold and wet summer in Moscow, and very cold summer in Finland - Putin himself said how cold this summer has been not that our media wanted to report what he had to say! We've had a record July cold temperature of -33C in Greenland, indeed a record northern hemisphere cold temperature in July. Perth in Australia has had its coldest winter in years, with many record cold temperatures set in South Australia. Right around the world there is cold wherever you look, including Squaw Valley ski resort in California remaining open year round for the first time in 2017. How do you account for all this cold weather in the supposed warmest year ever? It doesn't fit, and the reason it doesn't fit is because the data you supplied from the Met Office is being fraudulently manipulated. NOAA, Hadley CRU and that wretched institution East Anglia University have all been caught fraudulently manipulating data. Serious solar physicists, not funded by the narrative that government wants to put out with the wish to tax carbon, openly ridicule the man made climate change agenda.
We wanted to be as important as China, the Soviet Union and the USA, and playing the game at an equal level to all of them.
That's very, very difficult for a small island off the coast of Europe, with our small population and economy, unless you can leverage something big, like an Empire, or unite the Anglosphere.
It's humiliating because we could still play that game up until 60 years ago, and we were culturally and politically used to it, and we haven't really been able to since.
It was that false view that we could no longer have our own place in the world that led us to the idiotic decision to become a third rate country in the burgeoning EU federation. It was a dumb decision then and remains a dumb decision today.
Without a vast Empire, the UK reverted to the sort of influence it had c.1700. Not bestriding the World like a colossus, but not trivial either.
Indeed. My view is that we neither need nor should want to be ruling an Empire - even a small one - nor telling other countries how to run their affairs. The EU is engaging in a struggle with countries like India and China which it is absolutely certain to lose. The smart thing to do is find our own niche in the new world and exploit it to our own benefit. Let others worry about throwing their weight around and telling other countries what to do.
How do you explain all the recent cold weather eg South America including snow in Santiago which is rare, snow on top of Table Mountain which is pretty rare, crops wiped out in Europe in late April including half of French vineyards and aforementioned Courgettes in Spain. A miserable cold and wet summer in Moscow, and very cold summer in Finland - Putin himself said how cold this summer has been not that our media wanted to report what he had to say! We've had a record July cold temperature of -33C in Greenland, indeed a record northern hemisphere cold temperature in July. Perth in Australia has had its coldest winter in years, with many record cold temperatures set in South Australia. Right around the world there is cold wherever you look, including Squaw Valley ski resort in California remaining open year round for the first time in 2017. How do you account for all this cold weather in the supposed warmest year ever? It doesn't fit, and the reason it doesn't fit is because the data you supplied from the Met Office is being fraudulently manipulated. NOAA, Hadley CRU and that wretched institution East Anglia University have all been caught fraudulently manipulating data. Serious solar physicists, not funded by the narrative that government wants to put out with the wish to tax carbon, openly ridicule the man made climate change agenda.
You need to differentiate between weather and climate. Southern Europe is currently enduring record temperatures but that is not significant in the overall sense either. What is important is the average and the average is rising. It is not rising as fast as the models predicted which suggests to me that there is something in the solar minimum hypothesis but for the reasons I have said that is a cause for concern not comfort. Things are likely to be worse than we think, not better.
Great essay by Mr. Meeks. History is not my metier, but I seem to recall from History 101 that one aspect of WW one was that mobilising an armed force was ponderous and slow (at least in Russia'a case) , gaining a kind of momentum of its own. Would our indecision and internal friction not be getting out of control?
Anecdotally, a friend back from a German visit said a businessman there was stricken with worry over Brexit, whereas another friend, back from France, said they are just laughing at us.
The German plans were based on a two front war being unwinnable, so had to defeat France before the Russians mobilised, which they expected to be slow.
Actually the Russians mobilised rapidly and invaded Prussia even before the Western campaign had failed, and Germany did well on a two front war, but got defeated when it went to one front.
Putting Lenin on that train to Petrograd was probably the single dumbest move the Germans made. Europe (and Germany in particular) would be a very different place if the Bolsheviks hadn't got their hands on power. Expectations and plans often don't survive contact with the enemy.
Germany's Second Team won convincingly in the East, whereas its First Team got bogged down in the West. I wonder if they should have just offered Russia a truce after driving them out of East Prussia.
How do you explain all the recent cold weather eg South America including snow in Santiago which is rare, snow on top of Table Mountain which is pretty rare, crops wiped out in Europe in late April including half of French vineyards and aforementioned Courgettes in Spain. A miserable cold and wet summer in Moscow, and very cold summer in Finland - Putin himself said how cold this summer has been not that our media wanted to report what he had to say! We've had a record July cold temperature of -33C in Greenland, indeed a record northern hemisphere cold temperature in July. Perth in Australia has had its coldest winter in years, with many record cold temperatures set in South Australia. Right around the world there is cold wherever you look, including Squaw Valley ski resort in California remaining open year round for the first time in 2017. How do you account for all this cold weather in the supposed warmest year ever? It doesn't fit, and the reason it doesn't fit is because the data you supplied from the Met Office is being fraudulently manipulated. NOAA, Hadley CRU and that wretched institution East Anglia University have all been caught fraudulently manipulating data. Serious solar physicists, not funded by the narrative that government wants to put out with the wish to tax carbon, openly ridicule the man made climate change agenda.
You need to differentiate between weather and climate. Southern Europe is currently enduring record temperatures but that is not significant in the overall sense either. What is important is the average and the average is rising. It is not rising as fast as the models predicted which suggests to me that there is something in the solar minimum hypothesis but for the reasons I have said that is a cause for concern not comfort. Things are likely to be worse than we think, not better.
And that of course is the simple way to wriggle out of it:
Weather = Stuff that doesn't fit the AGW religion Climate = Things that echo the agenda.
It's just a different version of playing the Because/Despite Brexit game.
At the same time we spent vast sums on the armed forces, we were told correctly that we had "never had it so good". By the mid-seventies, real incomes per head were double the level of 1945.
Because the Empire went, we embraced a belief in national decline that was never justified by the facts.
We wanted to be as important as China, the Soviet Union and the USA, and playing the game at an equal level to all of them.
That's very, very difficult for a small island off the coast of Europe, with our small population and economy, unless you can leverage something big, like an Empire, or unite the Anglosphere.
It's humiliating because we could still play that game up until 60 years ago, and we were culturally and politically used to it, and we haven't really been able to since.
I'm getting a bit jealous of William. It's my turn to be very much "out there" for a minute.
I'm not saying the UK should do the following. I'm not saying I want it, or that it's a good thing, or that the British voting public would elect anyone standing on this platform. But...
There is a huge number of people who would love to live in Britain. People who'll cross continents at great expense and in some cases grave danger. Even if we said we were going to strictly prioritise experienced professionals for the NHS, STEM graduates, construction industry workers with suitable vocational qualifications, holders of postgraduate degrees in valued non-STEM subjects (e.g. LLM lawyers, MBA managers, MSc financiers and risk managers, MA or PhD linguists) and anyone with a job that would let them earn £30k or more, we would still have more potential high-value migrants than we can shake a stick at.
You could stick on a requirement "must already speak English" (bonus point for Welsh or Gaelic, if you please) and what with it being a global language, and given the professional requirements, the numbers would barely thin. It's difficult to include a test for "a certain affinity for British culture" but Britain has been such a remarkably successful cultural exporter that this would surely prove a low bar regardless.
We also, though this be an unpopular view, have lots of room - with certain provisos. We would need to become more accepting of high-density housing solutions. We would need to sacrifice some green and pleasant land. But it would be eminently possible for these islands to provide a home to, say, 120-180 million people by 2060.
I have mentioned the costs of a higher population density but it would also have advantages - makes service delivery cheaper, and in some villages or smaller towns (where currently, say, a local shop or library or fitness centre or hospital cannot be justified) would make such provision financially sustainable. Many transportation systems work most effectively in high density areas. There would be huge economic opportunities that arise from attracting intelligent, hard-working, creative professionals from all over the world and seeing what happens when they have the chance to connect together. It would raise the economic wellbeing even of the existing population, in fact even of that subset of the existing population who are low-qualified and low-skilled (see also: Why I would rather have the lifestyle of a municipal street-cleaner in Singapore than Papua New Guinea).
Okay, Britain would become a very different place. You may well argue it would be a worse place, in many ways. But provided cultural and social cohesion could be maintained, it would be an exciting place (likely at the forefront of global science, technology, arts and culture), an enriched place (culturally and financially) and a very strong place - an undoubted global player. well ahead of Japan and Russia, only a notch or two below the leading superpowers of the day, and utterly unsubsumable into any European super-state. As indigestible as the Austro-Hungarian Empire to the nascent Germany.
All massively unlikely to happen, of course. But if the British really are ever determined, for whatever reason, to become once more a pivotal player in global affairs, this option is a real one. And such a vision of "Global Britain" as a kind of SuperSizedSinagpore seems rather more attractive to me than Empire 2.0 anlgocentric jingoism or the stratagem of "let's become Great Britain by becoming Greater Europe".
You need to differentiate between weather and climate. Southern Europe is currently enduring record temperatures but that is not significant in the overall sense either. What is important is the average and the average is rising. It is not rising as fast as the models predicted which suggests to me that there is something in the solar minimum hypothesis but for the reasons I have said that is a cause for concern not comfort. Things are likely to be worse than we think, not better.
And that of course is the simple way to wriggle out of it:
Weather = Stuff that doesn't fit the AGW religion Climate = Things that echo the agenda.
It's just a different version of playing the Because/Despite Brexit game.
No, it means that you look at the average, not freak weather events. Eg:
"A new study published this week in Geophysical Research Letters by Robert Graham at the Norwegian Polar Institute shows that warm winters in the Arctic are becoming more frequent and lasting for longer periods of time than they used to. Warm events were defined by when the air temperatures rose above -10 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit). While this is still well below the freezing point, it is 20 degrees Celsius (36 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. The last two winters have seen temperatures near the North Pole rising to 0 degrees Celsius. While an earlier study showed that winter 2015/2016 was the warmest recorded at that time, the winter of 2016/2017 was even warmer." http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
It is frankly absurd to ignore this material because it is not convenient.
How do you explain all the recent cold weather eg South America including snow in Santiago which is rare, snow on top of Table Mountain which is pretty rare, crops wiped out in Europe in late April including half of French vineyards and aforementioned Courgettes in Spain. A miserable cold and wet summer in Moscow, and very cold summer in Finland - Putin himself said how cold this summer has been not that our media wanted to report what he had to say! We've had a record July cold temperature of -33C in Greenland, indeed a record northern hemisphere cold temperature in July. Perth in Australia has had its coldest winter in years, with many record cold temperatures set in South Australia. Right around the world there is cold wherever you look, including Squaw Valley ski resort in California remaining open year round for the first time in 2017. How do you account for all this cold weather in the supposed warmest year ever? It doesn't fit, and the reason it doesn't fit is because the data you supplied from the Met Office is being fraudulently manipulated. NOAA, Hadley CRU and that wretched institution East Anglia University have all been caught fraudulently manipulating data. Serious solar physicists, not funded by the narrative that government wants to put out with the wish to tax carbon, openly ridicule the man made climate change agenda.
You need to differentiate between weather and climate. Southern Europe is currently enduring record temperatures but that is not significant in the overall sense either. What is important is the average and the average is rising. It is not rising as fast as the models predicted which suggests to me that there is something in the solar minimum hypothesis but for the reasons I have said that is a cause for concern not comfort. Things are likely to be worse than we think, not better.
And that of course is the simple way to wriggle out of it:
Weather = Stuff that doesn't fit the AGW religion Climate = Things that echo the agenda.
It's just a different version of playing the Because/Despite Brexit game.
I went raving in Iceland in April once, and it was effing hot after dancing solid for seven hours. I knew then that AGW was a hoax.
How do you explain all the recent cold weather eg South America including snow in Santiago which is rare, snow on top of Table Mountain which is pretty rare, crops wiped out in Europe in late April including half of French vineyards and aforementioned Courgettes in Spain. A miserable cold and wet summer in Moscow, and very cold summer in Finland - Putin himself said how cold this summer has been not that our media wanted to report what he had to say! We've had a record July cold temperature of -33C in Greenland, indeed a record northern hemisphere cold temperature in July. Perth in Australia has had its coldest winter in years, with many record cold temperatures set in South Australia. Right around the world there is cold wherever you look, including Squaw Valley ski resort in California remaining open year round for the first time in 2017. How do you account for all this cold weather in the supposed warmest year ever? It doesn't fit, and the reason it doesn't fit is because the data you supplied from the Met Office is being fraudulently manipulated. NOAA, Hadley CRU and that wretched institution East Anglia University have all been caught fraudulently manipulating data. Serious solar physicists, not funded by the narrative that government wants to put out with the wish to tax carbon, openly ridicule the man made climate change agenda.
You need to differentiate between weather and climate. Southern Europe is currently enduring record temperatures but that is not significant in the overall sense either. What is important is the average and the average is rising. It is not rising as fast as the models predicted which suggests to me that there is something in the solar minimum hypothesis but for the reasons I have said that is a cause for concern not comfort. Things are likely to be worse than we think, not better.
The only thing crazier than conspiracy theories is trying to reason with conspiracy theorists.
How do you explain all the recent cold weather eg South America including snow in Santiago which is rare, snow on top of Table Mountain which is pretty rare, crops wiped out in Europe in late April including half of French vineyards and aforementioned Courgettes in Spain. A miserable cold and wet summer in Moscow, and very cold summer in Finland - Putin himself said how cold this summer has been not that our media wanted to report what he had to say! We've had a record July cold temperature of -33C in Greenland, indeed a record northern hemisphere cold temperature in July. Perth in Australia has had its coldest winter in years, with many record cold temperatures set in South Australia. Right around the world there is cold wherever you look, including Squaw Valley ski resort in California remaining open year round for the first time in 2017. How do you account for all this cold weather in the supposed warmest year ever? It doesn't fit, and the reason it doesn't fit is because the data you supplied from the Met Office is being fraudulently manipulated. NOAA, Hadley CRU and that wretched institution East Anglia University have all been caught fraudulently manipulating data. Serious solar physicists, not funded by the narrative that government wants to put out with the wish to tax carbon, openly ridicule the man made climate change agenda.
You need to differentiate between weather and climate. Southern Europe is currently enduring record temperatures but that is not significant in the overall sense either. What is important is the average and the average is rising. It is not rising as fast as the models predicted which suggests to me that there is something in the solar minimum hypothesis but for the reasons I have said that is a cause for concern not comfort. Things are likely to be worse than we think, not better.
And that of course is the simple way to wriggle out of it:
Weather = Stuff that doesn't fit the AGW religion Climate = Things that echo the agenda.
It's just a different version of playing the Because/Despite Brexit game.
I went raving in Iceland in April once, and it was effing hot after dancing solid for seven hours. I knew then that AGW was a hoax.
How do you explain all the recent cold weather eg South America including snow in Santiago which is rare, snow on top of Table Mountain which is pretty rare, crops wiped out in Europe in late April including half of French vineyards and aforementioned Courgettes in Spain. A miserable cold and wet summer in Moscow, and very cold summer in Finland - Putin himself said how cold this summer has been not that our media wanted to report what he had to say! We've had a record July cold temperature of -33C in Greenland, indeed a record northern hemisphere cold temperature in July. Perth in Australia has had its coldest winter in years, with many record cold temperatures set in South Australia. Right around the world there is cold wherever you look, including Squaw Valley ski resort in California remaining open year round for the first time in 2017. How do you account for all this cold weather in the supposed warmest year ever? It doesn't fit, and the reason it doesn't fit is because the data you supplied from the Met Office is being fraudulently manipulated. NOAA, Hadley CRU and that wretched institution East Anglia University have all been caught fraudulently manipulating data. Serious solar physicists, not funded by the narrative that government wants to put out with the wish to tax carbon, openly ridicule the man made climate change agenda.
You need to differentiate between weather and climate. Southern Europe is currently enduring record temperatures but that is not significant in the overall sense either. What is important is the average and the average is rising. It is not rising as fast as the models predicted which suggests to me that there is something in the solar minimum hypothesis but for the reasons I have said that is a cause for concern not comfort. Things are likely to be worse than we think, not better.
The only thing crazier than conspiracy theories is trying to reason with conspiracy theorists.
You're right although your point about raving in Iceland did make me hesitate for a moment. Welcome by the way.
You need to differentiate between weather and climate. Southern Europe is currently enduring record temperatures but that is not significant in the overall sense either. What is important is the average and the average is rising. It is not rising as fast as the models predicted which suggests to me that there is something in the solar minimum hypothesis but for the reasons I have said that is a cause for concern not comfort. Things are likely to be worse than we think, not better.
And that of course is the simple way to wriggle out of it:
Weather = Stuff that doesn't fit the AGW religion Climate = Things that echo the agenda.
It's just a different version of playing the Because/Despite Brexit game.
No, it means that you look at the average, not freak weather events. Eg:
"A new study published this week in Geophysical Research Letters by Robert Graham at the Norwegian Polar Institute shows that warm winters in the Arctic are becoming more frequent and lasting for longer periods of time than they used to. Warm events were defined by when the air temperatures rose above -10 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit). While this is still well below the freezing point, it is 20 degrees Celsius (36 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. The last two winters have seen temperatures near the North Pole rising to 0 degrees Celsius. While an earlier study showed that winter 2015/2016 was the warmest recorded at that time, the winter of 2016/2017 was even warmer." http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
It is frankly absurd to ignore this material because it is not convenient.
I agree that it's absurd. And yet that is what you Warmists do.
You need to differentiate between weather and climate. Southern Europe is currently enduring record temperatures but that is not significant in the overall sense either. What is important is the average and the average is rising. It is not rising as fast as the models predicted which suggests to me that there is something in the solar minimum hypothesis but for the reasons I have said that is a cause for concern not comfort. Things are likely to be worse than we think, not better.
And that of course is the simple way to wriggle out of it:
Weather = Stuff that doesn't fit the AGW religion Climate = Things that echo the agenda.
It's just a different version of playing the Because/Despite Brexit game.
No, it means that you look at the average, not freak weather events. Eg:
"A new study published this week in Geophysical Research Letters by Robert Graham at the Norwegian Polar Institute shows that warm winters in the Arctic are becoming more frequent and lasting for longer periods of time than they used to. Warm events were defined by when the air temperatures rose above -10 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit). While this is still well below the freezing point, it is 20 degrees Celsius (36 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. The last two winters have seen temperatures near the North Pole rising to 0 degrees Celsius. While an earlier study showed that winter 2015/2016 was the warmest recorded at that time, the winter of 2016/2017 was even warmer." http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
It is frankly absurd to ignore this material because it is not convenient.
I agree that it's absurd. And yet that is what you Warmists do.
How do you explain all the recent cold weather eg South America including snow in Santiago which is rare, snow on top of Table Mountain which is pretty rare, crops wiped out in Europe in late April including half of French vineyards and aforementioned Courgettes in Spain. A miserable cold and wet summer in Moscow, and very cold summer in Finland - Putin himself said how cold this summer has been not that our media wanted to report what he had to say! We've had a record July cold temperature of -33C in Greenland, indeed a record northern hemisphere cold temperature in July. Perth in Australia has had its coldest winter in years, with many record cold temperatures set in South Australia. Right around the world there is cold wherever you look, including Squaw Valley ski resort in California remaining open year round for the first time in 2017. How do you account for all this cold weather in the supposed warmest year ever? It doesn't fit, and the reason it doesn't fit is because the data you supplied from the Met Office is being fraudulently manipulated. NOAA, Hadley CRU and that wretched institution East Anglia University have all been caught fraudulently manipulating data. Serious solar physicists, not funded by the narrative that government wants to put out with the wish to tax carbon, openly ridicule the man made climate change agenda.
You need to differentiate between weather and climate. Southern Europe is currently enduring record temperatures but that is not significant in the overall sense either. What is important is the average and the average is rising. It is not rising as fast as the models predicted which suggests to me that there is something in the solar minimum hypothesis but for the reasons I have said that is a cause for concern not comfort. Things are likely to be worse than we think, not better.
The only thing crazier than conspiracy theories is trying to reason with conspiracy theorists.
You're right although your point about raving in Iceland did make me hesitate for a moment. Welcome by the way.
You need to differentiate between weather and climate. Southern Europe is currently enduring record temperatures but that is not significant in the overall sense either. What is important is the average and the average is rising. It is not rising as fast as the models predicted which suggests to me that there is something in the solar minimum hypothesis but for the reasons I have said that is a cause for concern not comfort. Things are likely to be worse than we think, not better.
And that of course is the simple way to wriggle out of it:
Weather = Stuff that doesn't fit the AGW religion Climate = Things that echo the agenda.
It's just a different version of playing the Because/Despite Brexit game.
No, it means that you look at the average, not freak weather events. Eg:
"A new study published this week in Geophysical Research Letters by Robert Graham at the Norwegian Polar Institute shows that warm winters in the Arctic are becoming more frequent and lasting for longer periods of time than they used to. Warm events were defined by when the air temperatures rose above -10 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit). While this is still well below the freezing point, it is 20 degrees Celsius (36 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. The last two winters have seen temperatures near the North Pole rising to 0 degrees Celsius. While an earlier study showed that winter 2015/2016 was the warmest recorded at that time, the winter of 2016/2017 was even warmer." http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
It is frankly absurd to ignore this material because it is not convenient.
I agree that it's absurd. And yet that is what you Warmists do.
You need to differentiate between weather and climate. Southern Europe is currently enduring record temperatures but that is not significant in the overall sense either. What is important is the average and the average is rising. It is not rising as fast as the models predicted which suggests to me that there is something in the solar minimum hypothesis but for the reasons I have said that is a cause for concern not comfort. Things are likely to be worse than we think, not better.
And that of course is the simple way to wriggle out of it:
Weather = Stuff that doesn't fit the AGW religion Climate = Things that echo the agenda.
It's just a different version of playing the Because/Despite Brexit game.
No, it means that you look at the average, not freak weather events. Eg:
"A new study published this week in Geophysical Research Letters by Robert Graham at the Norwegian Polar Institute shows that warm winters in the Arctic are becoming more frequent and lasting for longer periods of time than they used to. Warm events were defined by when the air temperatures rose above -10 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit). While this is still well below the freezing point, it is 20 degrees Celsius (36 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. The last two winters have seen temperatures near the North Pole rising to 0 degrees Celsius. While an earlier study showed that winter 2015/2016 was the warmest recorded at that time, the winter of 2016/2017 was even warmer." http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
It is frankly absurd to ignore this material because it is not convenient.
I agree that it's absurd. And yet that is what you Warmists do.
You need to differentiate between weather and climate. Southern Europe is currently enduring record temperatures but that is not significant in the overall sense either. What is important is the average and the average is rising. It is not rising as fast as the models predicted which suggests to me that there is something in the solar minimum hypothesis but for the reasons I have said that is a cause for concern not comfort. Things are likely to be worse than we think, not better.
And that of course is the simple way to wriggle out of it:
Weather = Stuff that doesn't fit the AGW religion Climate = Things that echo the agenda.
It's just a different version of playing the Because/Despite Brexit game.
No, it means that you look at the average, not freak weather events. Eg:
"A new study published this week in Geophysical Research Letters by Robert Graham at the Norwegian Polar Institute shows that warm winters in the Arctic are becoming more frequent and lasting for longer periods of time than they used to. Warm events were defined by when the air temperatures rose above -10 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit). While this is still well below the freezing point, it is 20 degrees Celsius (36 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. The last two winters have seen temperatures near the North Pole rising to 0 degrees Celsius. While an earlier study showed that winter 2015/2016 was the warmest recorded at that time, the winter of 2016/2017 was even warmer." http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
It is frankly absurd to ignore this material because it is not convenient.
I agree that it's absurd. And yet that is what you Warmists do.
I was told at lunch today that the weapon of choice in our prisons tends to be kettles of boiling water. But to make it more damaging they put a lot of sugar in it so it sticks to the skin and can't be so easily washed off....
How do you explain all the recent cold weather eg South America including snow in Santiago which is rare, snow on top of Table Mountain which is pretty rare, crops wiped out in Europe in late April including half of French vineyards and aforementioned Courgettes in Spain. A miserable cold and wet summer in Moscow, and very cold summer in Finland - Putin himself said how cold this summer has been not that our media wanted to report what he had to say! We've had a record July cold temperature of -33C in Greenland, indeed a record northern hemisphere cold temperature in July. Perth in Australia has had its coldest winter in years, with many record cold temperatures set in South Australia. Right around the world there is cold wherever you look, including Squaw Valley ski resort in California remaining open year round for the first time in 2017. How do you account for all this cold weather in the supposed warmest year ever? It doesn't fit, and the reason it doesn't fit is because the data you supplied from the Met Office is being fraudulently manipulated. NOAA, Hadley CRU and that wretched institution East Anglia University have all been caught fraudulently manipulating data. Serious solar physicists, not funded by the narrative that government wants to put out with the wish to tax carbon, openly ridicule the man made climate change agenda.
You need to differentiate between weather and climate. Southern Europe is currently enduring record temperatures but that is not significant in the overall sense either. What is important is the average and the average is rising. It is not rising as fast as the models predicted which suggests to me that there is something in the solar minimum hypothesis but for the reasons I have said that is a cause for concern not comfort. Things are likely to be worse than we think, not better.
And that of course is the simple way to wriggle out of it:
Weather = Stuff that doesn't fit the AGW religion Climate = Things that echo the agenda.
It's just a different version of playing the Because/Despite Brexit game.
I went raving in Iceland in April once, and it was effing hot after dancing solid for seven hours. I knew then that AGW was a hoax.
Blimey, I go off for a few hours to share a couple of glasses of wine with neighbours and when I come back the topic of discussion has changed from 1914 to global warming and sperm counts! What is it with this website?
And do the thread header writers wonder why they bother?
Sperm counts in the West plunge by 60% in 40 years as ‘modern life’ damages men’s health
I thought that was proved to be due to the amount of female hormones entering our water supply due to the pill. Or is that just a myth?? I haven't really looked at it in detail.
How do you explain all the recent cold weather eg South America including snow in Santiago which is rare, snow on top of Table Mountain which is pretty rare, crops wiped out in Europe in late April including half of French vineyards and aforementioned Courgettes in Spain. A miserable cold and wet summer in Moscow, and very cold summer in Finland - Putin himself said how cold this summer has been not that our media wanted to report what he had to say! We've had a record July cold temperature of -33C in Greenland, indeed a record northern hemisphere cold temperature in July. Perth in Australia has had its coldest winter in years, with many record cold temperatures set in South Australia. Right around the world there is cold wherever you look, including Squaw Valley ski resort in California remaining open year round for the first time in 2017. How do you account for all this cold weather in the supposed warmest year ever? It doesn't fit, and the reason it doesn't fit is because the data you supplied from the Met Office is being fraudulently manipulated. NOAA, Hadley CRU and that wretched institution East Anglia University have all been caught fraudulently manipulating data. Serious solar physicists, not funded by the narrative that government wants to put out with the wish to tax carbon, openly ridicule the man made climate change agenda.
You need to differentiate between weather and climate. Southern Europe is currently enduring record temperatures but that is not significant in the overall sense either. What is important is the average and the average is rising. It is not rising as fast as the models predicted which suggests to me that there is something in the solar minimum hypothesis but for the reasons I have said that is a cause for concern not comfort. Things are likely to be worse than we think, not better.
And that of course is the simple way to wriggle out of it:
Weather = Stuff that doesn't fit the AGW religion Climate = Things that echo the agenda.
It's just a different version of playing the Because/Despite Brexit game.
I went raving in Iceland in April once, and it was effing hot after dancing solid for seven hours. I knew then that AGW was a hoax.
You might be on the wrong website?
You chucking me out doorman?
Normally we talk about important things like cricket and ancient history but politics gets the odd mention too.
Normally we talk about important things like cricket and ancient history but politics gets the odd mention too.
I don't think we have anyone on here who talks about rave culture. Okay SeanT was our resident drug expert but that was all old boring twentieth century drugs like heroin.
Mr Acieed could be a valuable addition to our collective knowledge.
I was told at lunch today that the weapon of choice in our prisons tends to be kettles of boiling water. But to make it more damaging they put a lot of sugar in it so it sticks to the skin and can't be so easily washed off....
Nearly put me off my soup.
I think that's what they did in the series "The Night Of". Have you seen it? Quite good I thought
Sperm counts in the West plunge by 60% in 40 years as ‘modern life’ damages men’s health
I thought that was proved to be due to the amount of female hormones entering our water supply due to the pill. Or is that just a myth?? I haven't really looked at it in detail.
I think that a bigger factor is the chemicals that come off a lot of plastics and some agrichemicals which are very similar to female hormones and seem to impede the development of young male testes. Infertility is certainly an increasing problem
Thread header: Almost anything at all. Below the line: BREXIT Thread header: Brexit. Below the line: EMPIRES AND STUDENT DEBT AND GLOBAL WARMING
Never change, PB.
A good header from Alastair Meeks, though I have rather more confidence than he that a deal, however imperfect, will be struck; history shows there is rather more pragmatism (and an inclination for fudge and can-kicking) on both parties' parts than their respective public utterances suggest.
I was told at lunch today that the weapon of choice in our prisons tends to be kettles of boiling water. But to make it more damaging they put a lot of sugar in it so it sticks to the skin and can't be so easily washed off....
Nearly put me off my soup.
I think that's what they did in the series "The Night Of". Have you seen it? Quite good I thought
No missed that one. People can be really vile, can't they?
You need to differentiate between weather and climate. Southern Europe is currently enduring record temperatures but that is not significant in the overall sense either. What is important is the average and the average is rising. It is not rising as fast as the models predicted which suggests to me that there is something in the solar minimum hypothesis but for the reasons I have said that is a cause for concern not comfort. Things are likely to be worse than we think, not better.
And that of course is the simple way to wriggle out of it:
Weather = Stuff that doesn't fit the AGW religion Climate = Things that echo the agenda.
It's just a different version of playing the Because/Despite Brexit game.
No, it means that you look at the average, not freak weather events. Eg:
"A new study published this week in Geophysical Research Letters by Robert Graham at the Norwegian Polar Institute shows that warm winters in the Arctic are becoming more frequent and lasting for longer periods of time than they used to. Warm events were defined by when the air temperatures rose above -10 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit). While this is still well below the freezing point, it is 20 degrees Celsius (36 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. The last two winters have seen temperatures near the North Pole rising to 0 degrees Celsius. While an earlier study showed that winter 2015/2016 was the warmest recorded at that time, the winter of 2016/2017 was even warmer." http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
It is frankly absurd to ignore this material because it is not convenient.
I agree that it's absurd. And yet that is what you Warmists do.
Sperm counts in the West plunge by 60% in 40 years as ‘modern life’ damages men’s health
I thought that was proved to be due to the amount of female hormones entering our water supply due to the pill. Or is that just a myth?? I haven't really looked at it in detail.
I think that a bigger factor is the chemicals that come off a lot of plastics and some agrichemicals which are very similar to female hormones and seem to impede the development of young male testes. Infertility is certainly an increasing problem
Thanks David. Once again PB proves more informative than any newspaper article.
I was told at lunch today that the weapon of choice in our prisons tends to be kettles of boiling water. But to make it more damaging they put a lot of sugar in it so it sticks to the skin and can't be so easily washed off....
Nearly put me off my soup.
I think that's what they did in the series "The Night Of". Have you seen it? Quite good I thought
No missed that one. People can be really vile, can't they?
How do you explain all the recent cold weather eg South America including snow in Santiago which is rare, snow on top of Table Mountain which is pretty rare, crops wiped out in Europe in late April including half of French vineyards and aforementioned Courgettes in Spain. A miserable cold and wet summer in Moscow, and very cold summer in Finland - Putin himself said how cold this summer has been not that our media wanted to report what he had to say! We've had a record July cold temperature of -33C in Greenland, indeed a record northern hemisphere cold temperature in July. Perth in Australia has had its coldest winter in years, with many record cold temperatures set in South Australia. Right around the world there is cold wherever you look, including Squaw Valley ski resort in California remaining open year round for the first time in 2017. How do you account for all this cold weather in the supposed warmest year ever? It doesn't fit, and the reason it doesn't fit is because the data you supplied from the Met Office is being fraudulently manipulated. NOAA, Hadley CRU and that wretched institution East Anglia University have all been caught fraudulently manipulating data. Serious solar physicists, not funded by the narrative that government wants to put out with the wish to tax carbon, openly ridicule the man made climate change agenda.
You need to differentiate between weather and climate. Southern Europe is currently enduring record temperatures but that is not significant in the overall sense either. What is important is the average and the average is rising. It is not rising as fast as the models predicted which suggests to me that there is something in the solar minimum hypothesis but for the reasons I have said that is a cause for concern not comfort. Things are likely to be worse than we think, not better.
The only thing crazier than conspiracy theories is trying to reason with conspiracy theorists.
Comments
To be fair to Alastair, it's one of the first of his Brexit threads in a while that's criticised the EU.
(Or is this required as a condition of new US trade agreement?)
To be honest, it's water off a duck's back. Hyperbole speaks for itself.
In practice they did National Service and worked for a couple of years before going. It seems a good system, as a conscious decision had to be for uni rather than drifting aimlessly, and a more mature outlook on life and career. I wouldnt mind seeing such a system here.
Much of post-war British defence spending was laughably wasteful. Why did we need 3 V bomber designs?
Overall, it would make little difference to our economic performance whether we spent 2% of GDP or 4% on the armed forces.
Ah well, at least air shows were fun!
I was reading Hugo Rifkind's article in the Times today (Scott_P's tweet earlier on led me that way) and one thing I was struck by, reading the comments was the antipathy they had towards young voters calling us 'children' 'snowflakes' making the usual snide 'safe space' remark. This kind of attitude isn't going to get those who are anti-Corbyn very far.
History is not my metier, but I seem to recall from History 101 that one aspect of WW one was that mobilising an armed force was ponderous and slow (at least in Russia'a case) , gaining a kind of momentum of its own. Would our indecision and internal friction not be getting out of control?
Anecdotally, a friend back from a German visit said a businessman there was stricken with worry over Brexit, whereas another friend, back from France, said they are just laughing at us.
Because the Empire went, we embraced a belief in national decline that was never justified by the facts.
You're right that the politicians are making a mess of what should be pretty simple in outline (the detail was always going to be a nightmare, but getting the big picture wrong is stupid).
Incidentally, the cause of WW1 is probably the most well understood of historical themes.
British graduates going into the job market - particularly in a job that requires independent thought and getting ones hands dirty - with no previous work experience really are very poor generally. At least in comparison to their continental peers. The difference as far as I could see was national service - not necessarily military but just the fact of having to do a physical job instead of moving straight through academia to graduation.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/refugees/schulz-warning-if-italy-is-not-given-aid-by-the-eu-the-refugee-crisis-will-explode-again/
Funny that we don't hear about such matters in the mainstream media in the UK isn't it?
It would have allowed the UK to maintain a Mediterranean fleet, as well as an Atlantic/home fleet, maintain bases in the middle east, probably in Aden, and in the Far East in Singapore/Hong Kong. And probably resulted in more regular African interventions as well. It would have kept the UK at the leading edge of aviation, ship design and missile development.
It would have meant the UK had much more leverage over conflicts like Vietnam and Cambodia, and in Chinese relations, and a more equal voice in middle eastern oil politics.
It would have come at the cost of healthcare and welfare.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/war/poland-suggests-using-refugees-to-form-an-army-very-bad-idea/
It just goes to show how right we were to vote for Brexit last year.
Together with the CBI survey this might be an indicator of economic improvement:
' A shortage of industrial space is threatening to curb British manufacturing after UK businesses experienced a post-Brexit vote boom brought about by the weakened pound.
The UK has a little over one year’s worth of industrial space left thanks to a rush to secure new or larger premises by British companies, according to new data from real estate advisers Colliers International.
The manufacturing sector now accounts for 27pc of the industrial property market, up from 19pc in 2016, making it second only to retailers and wholesalers who account for about a third of the market.
Bo Glowacz, senior research analyst at Colliers International, said: “Following the outcome of the European referendum, there has been stronger demand for industrial space from the manufacturing sector due to the weakening value of sterling encouraging a surge in demand for British goods.” '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/24/britains-booming-manufacturers-threatened-squeeze-industrial/
That won't happen, of course, and wouldn't have if we'd stayed in the EU either, but we will continue to try and fudge it by puffing up our chests and figures.
You can have all that you desire via an acceptance that it can only be achieved by uniting Old Europe.
That's very, very difficult for a small island off the coast of Europe, with our small population and economy, unless you can leverage something big, like an Empire, or unite the Anglosphere.
It's humiliating because we could still play that game up until 60 years ago, and we were culturally and politically used to it, and we haven't really been able to since.
It would also allow the potential student to get some experience of work in their expected field of study and so reduce the risk of them doing something to which they're not suited.
But, I accept that's a minority view today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x-Io1vhOOI
You really do seek a cathartic defeat at the hands of the Europeans...
On a serious note ... welfare.
Fortunately I only lived around 13 days under the 2nd Wilson premiership (giving away my date of birth there!) and he got most big decisions wrong......apart from the Open University and staying out of Vietnam (well largely so although we did have a few secret operations there). How you think we would have been better off with 8-9% of defence spending and getting involved in the quagmire of Vietnam is beyond me, thank goodness we pretty much remained out of that one.
I am personally willing to pay the high price required for the UK to have a major say in the development of the future course of humanity, with us having the ability to both steer and pull levers, which I think is crucial given we have <1% of the global population. And I would vote for it too.
But, I accept that's a minority view today.</p>
i broadly agree with you on increasing defence spending to 3% of GDP in the current volatile geopolitical climate, but that's never going to happen in a month of Sunday's given the 2% of GDP spending commitment, thanks to being part of the EU military union.......of which most of the general public would be horrified if they knew the details, including I daresay a fair chunk of the 48% who voted to remain last year. We've just spent £3bn on an aircraft carrier without any thought to the necessary fleet including destroyers backing it up, or aircraft that are compatible with it.......but heck that's all part of the plan that none of the EU states will individually have a joined up military capability, so that they have to mesh together as part of the wider EU military union. They're perfectly open about the intention if you go to France and Germany, I wonder why we don't have the same openness about what our government is doing to our defence forces here. It doesn't take too many brain cells to work out why.
Having said that, I have absolutely no desire for our defence forces to get involved overseas, unless it is an obvious threat to our national security. Our adventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan but to name a few in recent years have been an unmitigated disaster. We still think of ourselves as a global military power as a hangover of our empire days. Its been long overdue to update that outdated mindset, and exercise soft power in a responsible way. Not that we have been doing that in recent years, with BBC World being one of the major culprits of putting out fake news in many countries.
The process of negotiation itself, developments within the UK, within each of the UK's parties, politics within the EU machine, within the other 27 nations. All with a greater or lesser degree of unpredictability. All with the potential to collide to produce a causal avalanche in any of several directions - producing outcomes which no one wants and certainly can't predict.
Ian Jack had a lovely discussion of this last November. Google 'Ian Jack Brexit Sleepwalkers'.
A bumpy ride indeed!
Is this something I should worry about?
If this is happening despite minimums in the Sun's output we have a serious problem on our hands because the full effects of warming may well be being disguised by countervailing factors. When that minimum passes temperatures may accelerate very rapidly and beyond our ability to respond.
There is of course a lot of crap written in the media about global warming and supposed causes and effects. It may be that these volcanoes are an example. But that crap does not undermine the central premise. It would be astonishing if the activities of man over the last millennium did not have a material effect on global temperatures. Millions of years of carbon capture have been reversed in the blink of an eye in geological terms.
Meanwhile here is another wonderful YouTube video about EU corruption, from a man who was allegedly murdered in the year following this speech in 2009:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GclxqknrTog
Actually the Russians mobilised rapidly and invaded Prussia even before the Western campaign had failed, and Germany did well on a two front war, but got defeated when it went to one front.
Putting Lenin on that train to Petrograd was probably the single dumbest move the Germans made. Europe (and Germany in particular) would be a very different place if the Bolsheviks hadn't got their hands on power. Expectations and plans often don't survive contact with the enemy.
Weather = Stuff that doesn't fit the AGW religion
Climate = Things that echo the agenda.
It's just a different version of playing the Because/Despite Brexit game.
I'm not saying the UK should do the following. I'm not saying I want it, or that it's a good thing, or that the British voting public would elect anyone standing on this platform. But...
There is a huge number of people who would love to live in Britain. People who'll cross continents at great expense and in some cases grave danger. Even if we said we were going to strictly prioritise experienced professionals for the NHS, STEM graduates, construction industry workers with suitable vocational qualifications, holders of postgraduate degrees in valued non-STEM subjects (e.g. LLM lawyers, MBA managers, MSc financiers and risk managers, MA or PhD linguists) and anyone with a job that would let them earn £30k or more, we would still have more potential high-value migrants than we can shake a stick at.
You could stick on a requirement "must already speak English" (bonus point for Welsh or Gaelic, if you please) and what with it being a global language, and given the professional requirements, the numbers would barely thin. It's difficult to include a test for "a certain affinity for British culture" but Britain has been such a remarkably successful cultural exporter that this would surely prove a low bar regardless.
We also, though this be an unpopular view, have lots of room - with certain provisos. We would need to become more accepting of high-density housing solutions. We would need to sacrifice some green and pleasant land. But it would be eminently possible for these islands to provide a home to, say, 120-180 million people by 2060.
I have mentioned the costs of a higher population density but it would also have advantages - makes service delivery cheaper, and in some villages or smaller towns (where currently, say, a local shop or library or fitness centre or hospital cannot be justified) would make such provision financially sustainable. Many transportation systems work most effectively in high density areas. There would be huge economic opportunities that arise from attracting intelligent, hard-working, creative professionals from all over the world and seeing what happens when they have the chance to connect together. It would raise the economic wellbeing even of the existing population, in fact even of that subset of the existing population who are low-qualified and low-skilled (see also: Why I would rather have the lifestyle of a municipal street-cleaner in Singapore than Papua New Guinea).
Okay, Britain would become a very different place. You may well argue it would be a worse place, in many ways. But provided cultural and social cohesion could be maintained, it would be an exciting place (likely at the forefront of global science, technology, arts and culture), an enriched place (culturally and financially) and a very strong place - an undoubted global player. well ahead of Japan and Russia, only a notch or two below the leading superpowers of the day, and utterly unsubsumable into any European super-state. As indigestible as the Austro-Hungarian Empire to the nascent Germany.
All massively unlikely to happen, of course. But if the British really are ever determined, for whatever reason, to become once more a pivotal player in global affairs, this option is a real one. And such a vision of "Global Britain" as a kind of SuperSizedSinagpore seems rather more attractive to me than Empire 2.0 anlgocentric jingoism or the stratagem of "let's become Great Britain by becoming Greater Europe".
"A new study published this week in Geophysical Research Letters by Robert Graham at the Norwegian Polar Institute shows that warm winters in the Arctic are becoming more frequent and lasting for longer periods of time than they used to. Warm events were defined by when the air temperatures rose above -10 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit). While this is still well below the freezing point, it is 20 degrees Celsius (36 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. The last two winters have seen temperatures near the North Pole rising to 0 degrees Celsius. While an earlier study showed that winter 2015/2016 was the warmest recorded at that time, the winter of 2016/2017 was even warmer."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
It is frankly absurd to ignore this material because it is not convenient.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urglg3WimHA
I miss the venerable Tapestry. Anyone know how he is getting along these days?
Welcome by the way.
Fits the wishlist = Climate change
Inconvenient dataset = Hide The Decline (© Michael Mann)
"If you thought it was a drug, now you know you're wrong"
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/889946050445922305
Is she fit? Photographs please. Topless or they don't count.
It's a membership condition of posting on PB.
To be fair, my mother was surprisingly okay with it when I joined.
Nearly put me off my soup.
And do the thread header writers wonder why they bother?
Mr Acieed could be a valuable addition to our collective knowledge.
Thread header: Brexit. Below the line: EMPIRES AND STUDENT DEBT AND GLOBAL WARMING
Never change, PB.
A good header from Alastair Meeks, though I have rather more confidence than he that a deal, however imperfect, will be struck; history shows there is rather more pragmatism (and an inclination for fudge and can-kicking) on both parties' parts than their respective public utterances suggest.