This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
I think you are misrepresenting his critics on here. Most critics on here believe he is a good campaigner and awful at governing. That we repeatedly lament his governments performance, does not imply we are expecting a sudden change in the polls. Many like myself have backed the Tories for the next election, opposed not just Starmer as PM but also Sunak as next PM as it could be a long time before "Boris" leaves.
There's a massive space between "unfit for office" and "the Devil". Think about the last episode of Line of Duty.
A lot of people got very unhappy when the final reveal was that the key villain (Spoiler alert!) wasn't a criminal mastermind. He was greedy and dishonest, sure, but also profoundly mediocre. The worst version of Everyman. The fact that the worst version of Everyman, the worst version of all of us, can be so malignant is an uncomfortable realisation.
It suits some Boris backers to think that their opponents see Johnson as the Devil. It's such an absurdity that it means they don't have to think about the real issues. And yes, some people have wound themselves up so much that they do push their criticisms of Johnson to ridiculous levels.
But that doesn't alter the observation that Johnsonism is a bad way of running a country. It makes the United Kingdom an objectively worse place to live- and not just because of the increased risk that you will stop living. And to a large extent, that was predictable and predicted.
Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer · 25m Uber formally recognising @GMB_union is a groundbreaking deal.
Congratulations to all at the @GMB_union who worked so hard to make this happen - the difference a union makes.
Who the actual fcuk runs social media for Sir K?
The world and a small dog are focused on Cummings and they spend their tweets on the GMB??
Are there none about Cummings as well? Seems a good time for it - people who care will notice and like it, and those focused on Cummings will pay attention to those.
I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.
They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.
Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.
Crap investment.
The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)
Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.
Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.
Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
Off topic. Just received an email from Argos. Apparently, their algorithms know what would make my Bank Holiday perfect. A robot dinosaur, a chandelier and a Dyson. Come to think of it...
I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.
They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.
Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.
Crap investment.
The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)
Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.
Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.
Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
80% of very little is very little.
Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.
Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.
It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.
A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.
Etc.
They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Another thing that will save Britain is this: Cummings has plausibly painted Johnson as a uniquely incompetent fool, the mayor from Jaws (who let the shark roam free, chewing up teens, remember).
So that must mean Britain has a uniquely bad record at handling coronavirus? Surely
And yet, not. In the excess death chart, where we once had gold medal status, now we are waaaaay down at about 20th or lower. And yes, economically, we have had a particularly rough time, but similar-sized European countries have done about as bad - or even worse. Spain, Italy. Maybe France. (We still don't know the final scores on the doors)
Meanwhile, we are opening up a little quicker than some European peers, and we are no longer dying, and many others are still dying around the world
Johnson may get away with it. Again. And I am someone who believes Cummings, almost completely in this case (even if he is self-serving)
Sadly, we're still opening up less quickly than we should. I thought we'd have three months on the EU, and it now looks like it might be more like four to six weeks.
Frankly it is ridiculous to suggest Hancock has been anything but one of the Cabinet success stories of this pandemic. If all the criticisms of him apply to March/April 2020, when the Govt was severely hampered by issues that few would have combatted successfully, then he’s in pretty good company. From all outside impressions he’s called pretty much everything right since - including the stories about how he is a pretty key factor in the success of the vaccines.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Another thing that will save Britain is this: Cummings has plausibly painted Johnson as a uniquely incompetent fool, the mayor from Jaws (who let the shark roam free, chewing up teens, remember).
So that must mean Britain has a uniquely bad record at handling coronavirus? Surely
And yet, not. In the excess death chart, where we once had gold medal status, now we are waaaaay down at about 20th or lower. And yes, economically, we have had a particularly rough time, but similar-sized European countries have done about as bad - or even worse. Spain, Italy. Maybe France. (We still don't know the final scores on the doors)
Meanwhile, we are opening up a little quicker than some European peers, and we are no longer dying, and many others are still dying around the world
Johnson may get away with it. Again. And I am someone who believes Cummings, almost completely in this case (even if he is self-serving)
Sadly, we're still opening up less quickly than we should. I thought we'd have three months on the EU, and it now looks like it might be more like four to six weeks.
Its possible that some EU countries get an extra wave from opening up too quickly and having a lower vaccination rate.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Another thing that will save Britain is this: Cummings has plausibly painted Johnson as a uniquely incompetent fool, the mayor from Jaws (who let the shark roam free, chewing up teens, remember).
So that must mean Britain has a uniquely bad record at handling coronavirus? Surely
And yet, not. In the excess death chart, where we once had gold medal status, now we are waaaaay down at about 20th or lower. And yes, economically, we have had a particularly rough time, but similar-sized European countries have done about as bad - or even worse. Spain, Italy. Maybe France. (We still don't know the final scores on the doors)
Meanwhile, we are opening up a little quicker than some European peers, and we are no longer dying, and many others are still dying around the world
Johnson may get away with it. Again. And I am someone who believes Cummings, almost completely in this case (even if he is self-serving)
Sadly, we're still opening up less quickly than we should. I thought we'd have three months on the EU, and it now looks like it might be more like four to six weeks.
There’s still a fair chance (15%?) that the government will roll back on 21 June and delay. Its ineptitude at Christmas (anyone remember the one-day school term?) has scarred it. It’s frit.
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.
They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.
Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.
Crap investment.
The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)
Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.
Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.
Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
80% of very little is very little.
Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.
Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.
It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.
A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.
Etc.
They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
They don’t need to have serial wiring now.
The costs are low enough now that the IRR is comfortably superior to risk free alternatives for properly scoped residential cases. And actually risk bearing alternatives too.
Frankly it is ridiculous to suggest Hancock has been anything but one of the Cabinet success stories of this pandemic. If all the criticisms of him apply to March/April 2020, when the Govt was severely hampered by issues that few would have combatted successfully, then he’s in pretty good company. From all outside impressions he’s called pretty much everything right since - including the stories about how he is a pretty key factor in the success of the vaccines.
Those criticisms around March/April 2020 apply to Cummins too.
I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.
They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.
Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.
Crap investment.
The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)
Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.
Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.
Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
80% of very little is very little.
Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.
Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.
It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.
A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.
Etc.
They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)
Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?
Here's two things to remember:
(1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.
(2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.
Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.
And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.
But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?
Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
Frankly it is ridiculous to suggest Hancock has been anything but one of the Cabinet success stories of this pandemic. If all the criticisms of him apply to March/April 2020, when the Govt was severely hampered by issues that few would have combatted successfully, then he’s in pretty good company. From all outside impressions he’s called pretty much everything right since - including the stories about how he is a pretty key factor in the success of the vaccines.
I could proffer a personal story about Matt Hancock from only last month that evidences that not only is he a very stupid and intellectually inflexible person, he is a moral vacuum. When he leaves Cabinet I’ll be popping champagne.
Dominic Cummings’s evidence was every bit as explosive as the billing. But the main thrust of it was extraordinary. It was that Britain should have closed its borders and locked everyone down back in January 2020 at a stage when the first reports were just coming out of Wuhan and very little was known about the virus.
Act first, think later, has never been carried further than that. No responsible government could have contemplated a lockdown before March, when the health implications became apparent.
If we’d done that in January then probably by Mid Feb the Govt would have fallen and we’d have had a new Govt in place who couldn’t impose a lockdown under any circumstances and the death toll would have been far far worse.
Frankly it is ridiculous to suggest Hancock has been anything but one of the Cabinet success stories of this pandemic. If all the criticisms of him apply to March/April 2020, when the Govt was severely hampered by issues that few would have combatted successfully, then he’s in pretty good company. From all outside impressions he’s called pretty much everything right since - including the stories about how he is a pretty key factor in the success of the vaccines.
I'd like to extend a big ol' PB welcome to Matt Hancock's Mother
Gordon Brittas has been all over the big stories of the day on twitter...
Tackling the climate emergency and realising the enormous potential that transitioning to a green economy holds, is the defining challenge of the next decade.
I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.
They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.
Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.
Crap investment.
The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)
Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.
Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.
Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
80% of very little is very little.
Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.
Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.
It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.
A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.
Etc.
They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
They don’t need to have serial wiring now.
The costs are low enough now that the IRR is comfortably superior to risk free alternatives for properly scoped residential cases. And actually risk bearing alternatives too.
More initial upfront cost for non-serial wiring though.
The fact is that most residential properties are not properly scoped. People are oversold on the benefits and are promised the world, and they wont get the world. People should be clear what they are getting.
They might be getting *some* free electricity in around 25 years time. Maybe 15 or 20 years time at best, assuming the system doesn't fail or break before that time, or you move. Is that worth the expense?
I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.
They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.
Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.
Crap investment.
The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)
Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.
Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.
Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
80% of very little is very little.
Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.
Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.
It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.
A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.
Etc.
They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)
Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?
Here's two things to remember:
(1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.
(2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.
Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.
And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.
But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?
Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
The current Land Government is a coalition of the CDU, SPD and Greens with the FDP not in the Parliament having just missed out last time. As elsewhere, the Greens are advancing as the Union retreats.
Again, we see the FDP advancing and Linke flirting with dropping below the 5% threshold for representation but it's the huge switch to the Greens from the Union and the SPD that catches the eye. Greens+SPD+FDP = 52%.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Another thing that will save Britain is this: Cummings has plausibly painted Johnson as a uniquely incompetent fool, the mayor from Jaws (who let the shark roam free, chewing up teens, remember).
So that must mean Britain has a uniquely bad record at handling coronavirus? Surely
And yet, not. In the excess death chart, where we once had gold medal status, now we are waaaaay down at about 20th or lower. And yes, economically, we have had a particularly rough time, but similar-sized European countries have done about as bad - or even worse. Spain, Italy. Maybe France. (We still don't know the final scores on the doors)
Meanwhile, we are opening up a little quicker than some European peers, and we are no longer dying, and many others are still dying around the world
Johnson may get away with it. Again. And I am someone who believes Cummings, almost completely in this case (even if he is self-serving)
Sadly, we're still opening up less quickly than we should. I thought we'd have three months on the EU, and it now looks like it might be more like four to six weeks.
Its possible that some EU countries get an extra wave from opening up too quickly and having a lower vaccination rate.
While it's possible, the reality is that most EU countries (there are exceptions) are getting pretty far along now. As a percentage of adults with at least one dose, they're up at 42.5% now, rising at about 5% per week.
Any major outbreak is therefore likely to be concentrated in younger age cohorts.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
No, just that he's unfit to be PM. No more, no less.
Off topic. Just received an email from Argos. Apparently, their algorithms know what would make my Bank Holiday perfect. A robot dinosaur, a chandelier and a Dyson. Come to think of it...
Presumably the Dyson is for when the robot dinosaur smashes the chandelier.
Still patiently waiting for a date for jab 1. Sigh.
Are you under 30 ?
Under 40. Just about!
You can use the national booking system.
Stupid question but is it applicable in Scotland? I'm under the impression I just get told via letter when it finally arrives.
If I can book it then hell yes
You should have been able to book on the. Scottish NHS site already, registration is open to 18-29 year olds so 30s is deffo open.
Thanks - did have a look, just checked but apparently still have to wait for the letter.
"You can register for a coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination when you're invited to by NHS Scotland through their online self-referral service.
Those aged 18 to 29 (as of 17 May 2021) are currently being invited to register for their coronavirus vaccine.
If you're aged 30 and over you will not be able to self-register as these appointments are currently being processed. You'll receive your blue envelope in the post. "
Excess deaths - I’m a bit confused by this. Given that it’s based on five year averages, aren’t our figures improving hand over fist mainly because March/April 2020 is now being incorporated into the “five year average” numbers. Hardly surprising we’re 20% down if that is the case?
I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.
They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.
Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.
Crap investment.
The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)
Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.
Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.
Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
80% of very little is very little.
Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.
Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.
It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.
A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.
Etc.
They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
They don’t need to have serial wiring now.
The costs are low enough now that the IRR is comfortably superior to risk free alternatives for properly scoped residential cases. And actually risk bearing alternatives too.
More initial upfront cost for non-serial wiring though.
The fact is that most residential properties are not properly scoped. People are oversold on the benefits and are promised the world, and they wont get the world. People should be clear what they are getting.
They might be getting *some* free electricity in around 25 years time. Maybe 15 or 20 years time at best, assuming the system doesn't fail or break before that time, or you move. Is that worth the expense?
It's not worth *your* investment. But it's almost certainly worth it for someone in their early 50s who's in saving mode.
Sadly, we're still opening up less quickly than we should. I thought we'd have three months on the EU, and it now looks like it might be more like four to six weeks.
I can see it tightening even more than that. Vaccination-wise, the EU is roughly where the UK was eight weeks ago. Take off a couple of weeks because everyone is going to accelerate even more next month. (The more doses per day, the fewer days it takes to catch up the accumulated gap at the end.) Take off a couple of weeks because OAZ takes a bit longer to get to useful immunity, and the UK's 12 week gap strategy works against it at this point. Even if it was sensible to prioritise 1st does in January to March. Take off a couple of weeks because the UK is being more cautious in reopening. Because, bluntly, the government has no choice now, having ballsed up lockdowns and reopenings so badly thus far.
France, in particular, would love to get back to normal on July 14th- so about 3 weeks behind the UK. As long as there are no nasty surprises, that will probably be do-able.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Another thing that will save Britain is this: Cummings has plausibly painted Johnson as a uniquely incompetent fool, the mayor from Jaws (who let the shark roam free, chewing up teens, remember).
So that must mean Britain has a uniquely bad record at handling coronavirus? Surely
And yet, not. In the excess death chart, where we once had gold medal status, now we are waaaaay down at about 20th or lower. And yes, economically, we have had a particularly rough time, but similar-sized European countries have done about as bad - or even worse. Spain, Italy. Maybe France. (We still don't know the final scores on the doors)
Meanwhile, we are opening up a little quicker than some European peers, and we are no longer dying, and many others are still dying around the world
Johnson may get away with it. Again. And I am someone who believes Cummings, almost completely in this case (even if he is self-serving)
Bailed out by the vaccines. You don't need to be Einstein to see this. I think the public might be up to it.
Still patiently waiting for a date for jab 1. Sigh.
Are you under 30 ?
Under 40. Just about!
You can use the national booking system.
Stupid question but is it applicable in Scotland? I'm under the impression I just get told via letter when it finally arrives.
If I can book it then hell yes
You should have been able to book on the. Scottish NHS site already, registration is open to 18-29 year olds so 30s is deffo open.
Thanks - did have a look, just checked but apparently still have to wait for the letter.
"You can register for a coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination when you're invited to by NHS Scotland through their online self-referral service.
Those aged 18 to 29 (as of 17 May 2021) are currently being invited to register for their coronavirus vaccine.
If you're aged 30 and over you will not be able to self-register as these appointments are currently being processed. You'll receive your blue envelope in the post. "
So under 30s can self register but over 30s have to wait for a letter? Eh? Really?
Frankly it is ridiculous to suggest Hancock has been anything but one of the Cabinet success stories of this pandemic. If all the criticisms of him apply to March/April 2020, when the Govt was severely hampered by issues that few would have combatted successfully, then he’s in pretty good company. From all outside impressions he’s called pretty much everything right since - including the stories about how he is a pretty key factor in the success of the vaccines.
I could proffer a personal story about Matt Hancock from only last month that evidences that not only is he a very stupid and intellectually inflexible person, he is a moral vacuum. When he leaves Cabinet I’ll be popping champagne.
That may well be the case. But then that hardly makes him the exception in the modern political world. If the anecdote however about how we came to cause the Oxford vaccine to partner with AZ is even half true then he deserves a great deal of credit for the vaccine success.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Another thing that will save Britain is this: Cummings has plausibly painted Johnson as a uniquely incompetent fool, the mayor from Jaws (who let the shark roam free, chewing up teens, remember).
So that must mean Britain has a uniquely bad record at handling coronavirus? Surely
And yet, not. In the excess death chart, where we once had gold medal status, now we are waaaaay down at about 20th or lower. And yes, economically, we have had a particularly rough time, but similar-sized European countries have done about as bad - or even worse. Spain, Italy. Maybe France. (We still don't know the final scores on the doors)
Meanwhile, we are opening up a little quicker than some European peers, and we are no longer dying, and many others are still dying around the world
Johnson may get away with it. Again. And I am someone who believes Cummings, almost completely in this case (even if he is self-serving)
Bailed out by the vaccines. You don't need to be Einstein to see this. I think the public might be up to it.
Not just the vaccines, the global horror. Few governments have handled this "well". If you want to mark out Boris as particularly bad you have to explain why so many other countries have done as badly, or worse. Are their leaders as comprehensively inept as Boris?
Still patiently waiting for a date for jab 1. Sigh.
Are you under 30 ?
Under 40. Just about!
You can use the national booking system.
Stupid question but is it applicable in Scotland? I'm under the impression I just get told via letter when it finally arrives.
If I can book it then hell yes
You should have been able to book on the. Scottish NHS site already, registration is open to 18-29 year olds so 30s is deffo open.
Thanks - did have a look, just checked but apparently still have to wait for the letter.
"You can register for a coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination when you're invited to by NHS Scotland through their online self-referral service.
Those aged 18 to 29 (as of 17 May 2021) are currently being invited to register for their coronavirus vaccine.
If you're aged 30 and over you will not be able to self-register as these appointments are currently being processed. You'll receive your blue envelope in the post. "
So under 30s can self register but over 30s have to wait for a letter? Eh? Really?
Don't really understand it myself, but I think it's the 18 to 29 group being able to self-register that's the outlier rather than the other way round.
Perhaps they think it's better to get students or whatever that way given they might not be near their home GP, or something?
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Another thing that will save Britain is this: Cummings has plausibly painted Johnson as a uniquely incompetent fool, the mayor from Jaws (who let the shark roam free, chewing up teens, remember).
So that must mean Britain has a uniquely bad record at handling coronavirus? Surely
And yet, not. In the excess death chart, where we once had gold medal status, now we are waaaaay down at about 20th or lower. And yes, economically, we have had a particularly rough time, but similar-sized European countries have done about as bad - or even worse. Spain, Italy. Maybe France. (We still don't know the final scores on the doors)
Meanwhile, we are opening up a little quicker than some European peers, and we are no longer dying, and many others are still dying around the world
Johnson may get away with it. Again. And I am someone who believes Cummings, almost completely in this case (even if he is self-serving)
Bailed out by the vaccines. You don't need to be Einstein to see this. I think the public might be up to it.
Not just the vaccines, the global horror. Few governments have handled this "well". If you want to mark out Boris as particularly bad you have to explain why so many other countries have done as badly, or worse. Are their leaders as comprehensively inept as Boris?
He is lucky the EU made such a horlics of the vaccination roll out. As remember how the media used to bang on and on and on about how Germany did more tests than us etc.
If they were doing as well on vaccines, I think there would be more of an attitude of shrug, well so they should have done this.
Still patiently waiting for a date for jab 1. Sigh.
Are you under 30 ?
Under 40. Just about!
You can use the national booking system.
Stupid question but is it applicable in Scotland? I'm under the impression I just get told via letter when it finally arrives.
If I can book it then hell yes
You should have been able to book on the. Scottish NHS site already, registration is open to 18-29 year olds so 30s is deffo open.
Thanks - did have a look, just checked but apparently still have to wait for the letter.
"You can register for a coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination when you're invited to by NHS Scotland through their online self-referral service.
Those aged 18 to 29 (as of 17 May 2021) are currently being invited to register for their coronavirus vaccine.
If you're aged 30 and over you will not be able to self-register as these appointments are currently being processed. You'll receive your blue envelope in the post. "
Excess deaths - I’m a bit confused by this. Given that it’s based on five year averages, aren’t our figures improving hand over fist mainly because March/April 2020 is now being incorporated into the “five year average” numbers. Hardly surprising we’re 20% down if that is the case?
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Another thing that will save Britain is this: Cummings has plausibly painted Johnson as a uniquely incompetent fool, the mayor from Jaws (who let the shark roam free, chewing up teens, remember).
So that must mean Britain has a uniquely bad record at handling coronavirus? Surely
And yet, not. In the excess death chart, where we once had gold medal status, now we are waaaaay down at about 20th or lower. And yes, economically, we have had a particularly rough time, but similar-sized European countries have done about as bad - or even worse. Spain, Italy. Maybe France. (We still don't know the final scores on the doors)
Meanwhile, we are opening up a little quicker than some European peers, and we are no longer dying, and many others are still dying around the world
Johnson may get away with it. Again. And I am someone who believes Cummings, almost completely in this case (even if he is self-serving)
Bailed out by the vaccines. You don't need to be Einstein to see this. I think the public might be up to it.
Not just the vaccines, the global horror. Few governments have handled this "well". If you want to mark out Boris as particularly bad you have to explain why so many other countries have done as badly, or worse. Are their leaders as comprehensively inept as Boris?
Germany has more deaths since October than we do. I don’t know what some of these European countries think they’ve got if it’s not the “concerning” India variant.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Another thing that will save Britain is this: Cummings has plausibly painted Johnson as a uniquely incompetent fool, the mayor from Jaws (who let the shark roam free, chewing up teens, remember).
So that must mean Britain has a uniquely bad record at handling coronavirus? Surely
And yet, not. In the excess death chart, where we once had gold medal status, now we are waaaaay down at about 20th or lower. And yes, economically, we have had a particularly rough time, but similar-sized European countries have done about as bad - or even worse. Spain, Italy. Maybe France. (We still don't know the final scores on the doors)
Meanwhile, we are opening up a little quicker than some European peers, and we are no longer dying, and many others are still dying around the world
Johnson may get away with it. Again. And I am someone who believes Cummings, almost completely in this case (even if he is self-serving)
Bailed out by the vaccines. You don't need to be Einstein to see this. I think the public might be up to it.
Not just the vaccines, the global horror. Few governments have handled this "well". If you want to mark out Boris as particularly bad you have to explain why so many other countries have done as badly, or worse. Are their leaders as comprehensively inept as Boris?
I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.
They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.
Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.
Crap investment.
The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)
Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.
Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.
Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
80% of very little is very little.
Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.
Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.
It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.
A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.
Etc.
They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
They don’t need to have serial wiring now.
The costs are low enough now that the IRR is comfortably superior to risk free alternatives for properly scoped residential cases. And actually risk bearing alternatives too.
We had our roof panels rewired on that basis a few years ago; we originally just snuck under the wire for the HUGE feed-in tarrif. The gizmos that convert direct current (from the panels) into alternating current (for the mains and grid) have got cheap enough that one per panel is viable. The daily output of the array increased by 20 percent or so.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Another thing that will save Britain is this: Cummings has plausibly painted Johnson as a uniquely incompetent fool, the mayor from Jaws (who let the shark roam free, chewing up teens, remember).
So that must mean Britain has a uniquely bad record at handling coronavirus? Surely
And yet, not. In the excess death chart, where we once had gold medal status, now we are waaaaay down at about 20th or lower. And yes, economically, we have had a particularly rough time, but similar-sized European countries have done about as bad - or even worse. Spain, Italy. Maybe France. (We still don't know the final scores on the doors)
Meanwhile, we are opening up a little quicker than some European peers, and we are no longer dying, and many others are still dying around the world
Johnson may get away with it. Again. And I am someone who believes Cummings, almost completely in this case (even if he is self-serving)
Bailed out by the vaccines. You don't need to be Einstein to see this. I think the public might be up to it.
Bailing out does imply that the public will give him no credit for it, when in reality he gets a lot of credit for it. Poor management, but great vaccine programme will likely average out to be okay overall, especially if more nations stall at the 70% vaccinated mark - which is the threshold where winter may be a bit tricky. If we're having a normal winter while Paris is shut down or under substantial restrictions because of the banlieues then he'll get even more credit for the vaccines.
Sometimes a lucky general is better than a good one.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Another thing that will save Britain is this: Cummings has plausibly painted Johnson as a uniquely incompetent fool, the mayor from Jaws (who let the shark roam free, chewing up teens, remember).
So that must mean Britain has a uniquely bad record at handling coronavirus? Surely
And yet, not. In the excess death chart, where we once had gold medal status, now we are waaaaay down at about 20th or lower. And yes, economically, we have had a particularly rough time, but similar-sized European countries have done about as bad - or even worse. Spain, Italy. Maybe France. (We still don't know the final scores on the doors)
Meanwhile, we are opening up a little quicker than some European peers, and we are no longer dying, and many others are still dying around the world
Johnson may get away with it. Again. And I am someone who believes Cummings, almost completely in this case (even if he is self-serving)
Bailed out by the vaccines. You don't need to be Einstein to see this. I think the public might be up to it.
Not just the vaccines, the global horror. Few governments have handled this "well". If you want to mark out Boris as particularly bad you have to explain why so many other countries have done as badly, or worse. Are their leaders as comprehensively inept as Boris?
He is lucky the EU made such a horlics of the vaccination roll out. As remember how the media used to bang on and on and on about how Germany did more tests than us etc.
If they were doing as well on vaccines, I think there would be more of an attitude of shrug, well so they should have done this.
Germany's done crap on testing and most other European countries have done much worse than the UK.
There would be a slight irony if it turns out that the India variant is less harmful than the U.K. one, and alleged attempts by some EU countries to keep it out are actually counterproductive...
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Another thing that will save Britain is this: Cummings has plausibly painted Johnson as a uniquely incompetent fool, the mayor from Jaws (who let the shark roam free, chewing up teens, remember).
So that must mean Britain has a uniquely bad record at handling coronavirus? Surely
And yet, not. In the excess death chart, where we once had gold medal status, now we are waaaaay down at about 20th or lower. And yes, economically, we have had a particularly rough time, but similar-sized European countries have done about as bad - or even worse. Spain, Italy. Maybe France. (We still don't know the final scores on the doors)
Meanwhile, we are opening up a little quicker than some European peers, and we are no longer dying, and many others are still dying around the world
Johnson may get away with it. Again. And I am someone who believes Cummings, almost completely in this case (even if he is self-serving)
Bailed out by the vaccines. You don't need to be Einstein to see this. I think the public might be up to it.
Not just the vaccines, the global horror. Few governments have handled this "well". If you want to mark out Boris as particularly bad you have to explain why so many other countries have done as badly, or worse. Are their leaders as comprehensively inept as Boris?
QTWTAIY
It's especially bad for Macron. His whole shtick is meant to be competent technocracy, yes he's an elitist and centrist bore, lacking charm, and with a weird marriage, but he is efficient. He will manage France well.
No one expected Boris to be a good but boring manager, they expected this of Macron
France has a death toll nearly as bad as ours, and of course they demanded the ineffectual EU vaccine drive
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Another thing that will save Britain is this: Cummings has plausibly painted Johnson as a uniquely incompetent fool, the mayor from Jaws (who let the shark roam free, chewing up teens, remember).
So that must mean Britain has a uniquely bad record at handling coronavirus? Surely
And yet, not. In the excess death chart, where we once had gold medal status, now we are waaaaay down at about 20th or lower. And yes, economically, we have had a particularly rough time, but similar-sized European countries have done about as bad - or even worse. Spain, Italy. Maybe France. (We still don't know the final scores on the doors)
Meanwhile, we are opening up a little quicker than some European peers, and we are no longer dying, and many others are still dying around the world
Johnson may get away with it. Again. And I am someone who believes Cummings, almost completely in this case (even if he is self-serving)
Bailed out by the vaccines. You don't need to be Einstein to see this. I think the public might be up to it.
Not just the vaccines, the global horror. Few governments have handled this "well". If you want to mark out Boris as particularly bad you have to explain why so many other countries have done as badly, or worse. Are their leaders as comprehensively inept as Boris?
He is lucky the EU made such a horlics of the vaccination roll out. As remember how the media used to bang on and on and on about how Germany did more tests than us etc.
If they were doing as well on vaccines, I think there would be more of an attitude of shrug, well so they should have done this.
Germany's done crap on testing and most other European countries have done much worse than the UK.
Yes I know...they were quick out the blocks. My point was I bet if you asked the public, they will just remember that early comparison and say well UK crap at testing, crap at tracing...when the truth was crap at testing (but still better than most EU countries) initially, then just way way better, up there with the best few nations....and trace, everybody does shit at trace, other than South Korea.
Vaccines its the opposite, everybody thinks UK is world leading, which we are, and that nobody in the EU is getting vaccinated, when now the likes of Germany have got their act together.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Another thing that will save Britain is this: Cummings has plausibly painted Johnson as a uniquely incompetent fool, the mayor from Jaws (who let the shark roam free, chewing up teens, remember).
So that must mean Britain has a uniquely bad record at handling coronavirus? Surely
And yet, not. In the excess death chart, where we once had gold medal status, now we are waaaaay down at about 20th or lower. And yes, economically, we have had a particularly rough time, but similar-sized European countries have done about as bad - or even worse. Spain, Italy. Maybe France. (We still don't know the final scores on the doors)
Meanwhile, we are opening up a little quicker than some European peers, and we are no longer dying, and many others are still dying around the world
Johnson may get away with it. Again. And I am someone who believes Cummings, almost completely in this case (even if he is self-serving)
Bailed out by the vaccines. You don't need to be Einstein to see this. I think the public might be up to it.
Not just the vaccines, the global horror. Few governments have handled this "well". If you want to mark out Boris as particularly bad you have to explain why so many other countries have done as badly, or worse. Are their leaders as comprehensively inept as Boris?
Different countries have done different things well and badly.
For the UK the good things were getting vaccines, testing and PPE production going well, often from nothing.
The bad things were appalling border control and the lack of a general public health campaign.
Hillsborough (which is awful) just looks risible compared to Covid-19
Ninety odd deaths, compared to..... 150,000, and maybe 10million worldwide
Covid is going to reframe our perception of "news stories"
Why? Which news grabs hold often seems pretty random and not necessarily rational based on its significance. Think of all the occasions and stories of people being killed by police, and the very different focus they get. That other stories pale compared to the scale of Covid won't prevent them being focused on later.
There would be a slight irony if it turns out that the India variant is less harmful than the U.K. one, and alleged attempts by some EU countries to keep it out are actually counterproductive...
We must be getting to the stage of being able to have a decent "World Cup of Covid Variants" tournament by now, right?
Hillsborough (which is awful) just looks risible compared to Covid-19
Ninety odd deaths, compared to..... 150,000, and maybe 10million worldwide
Covid is going to reframe our perception of "news stories"
Today's American mass shooting passed almost without notice.
Rising American crime rates are a massive untold story. Portland has recorded an apparent 950% increase in the murder rate, as Black Lives Matter riots in the centre, and tries to defund the police.
Hillsborough (which is awful) just looks risible compared to Covid-19
Ninety odd deaths, compared to..... 150,000, and maybe 10million worldwide
Covid is going to reframe our perception of "news stories"
Today's American mass shooting passed almost without notice.
Rising American crime rates are a massive untold story. Portland has recorded a 950% increase in the murder rate, as Black Lives Matter riots in the centre, and tries to defund the police.
If this continues I can see a Republican prez candidate, in 2024, making much hay
Who could have guessed....The West Coast in particular has been going down the shitter even before 2020....why are so many fleeing to Arizona, Utah, Texas and Colorado.
Hillsborough (which is awful) just looks risible compared to Covid-19
Ninety odd deaths, compared to..... 150,000, and maybe 10million worldwide
Covid is going to reframe our perception of "news stories"
Today's American mass shooting passed almost without notice.
Rising American crime rates are a massive untold story. Portland has recorded a 950% increase in the murder rate, as Black Lives Matter riots in the centre, and tries to defund the police.
Nothing to panic about yet but it does explain why Nicola and Devi have lost their enthusiasm for zero covid ideas.
The vast majority is in [edit] parts of greater Glasgow. Which is interesting in view of recent events there, though Glasgow was usually something of a focal point.
Rather low levels elsewhere, and the only two other foci are small local authorities so it might be a statistical effect.
I would infer from the fact that Glasgow has become a Plague hotspot, but Edinburgh and Dundee haven't, that the bulk of Scots of Indian descent live in Glasgow. That's based, in turn, on the assumption that the major English clusters of Indian variant cases (in parts of Lancs, W Yorks and Beds) have all been seeded by significant numbers of infected persons rushing back from India once the red list announcement was made, and then spreading it amongst sections of the community that have been comparatively tardy in taking up the offer of vaccination.
I'd certainly concur that the apparent spike in the case rate in Clackmannanshire is a statistical anomaly related to its very small size. It's not even the first occasion on which that local authority has stuck out like a sore thumb, for exactly that reason, in recent times.
Clackmannanshire has Glenochil Prison in the locality that has often registered high case numbers.
Hillsborough (which is awful) just looks risible compared to Covid-19
Ninety odd deaths, compared to..... 150,000, and maybe 10million worldwide
Covid is going to reframe our perception of "news stories"
Today's American mass shooting passed almost without notice.
Rising American crime rates are a massive untold story. Portland has recorded a 950% increase in the murder rate, as Black Lives Matter riots in the centre, and tries to defund the police.
Hillsborough (which is awful) just looks risible compared to Covid-19
Ninety odd deaths, compared to..... 150,000, and maybe 10million worldwide
Covid is going to reframe our perception of "news stories"
Today's American mass shooting passed almost without notice.
Rising American crime rates are a massive untold story. Portland has recorded a 950% increase in the murder rate, as Black Lives Matter riots in the centre, and tries to defund the police.
Nothing to panic about yet but it does explain why Nicola and Devi have lost their enthusiasm for zero covid ideas.
The vast majority is in [edit] parts of greater Glasgow. Which is interesting in view of recent events there, though Glasgow was usually something of a focal point.
Rather low levels elsewhere, and the only two other foci are small local authorities so it might be a statistical effect.
I would infer from the fact that Glasgow has become a Plague hotspot, but Edinburgh and Dundee haven't, that the bulk of Scots of Indian descent live in Glasgow. That's based, in turn, on the assumption that the major English clusters of Indian variant cases (in parts of Lancs, W Yorks and Beds) have all been seeded by significant numbers of infected persons rushing back from India once the red list announcement was made, and then spreading it amongst sections of the community that have been comparatively tardy in taking up the offer of vaccination.
I'd certainly concur that the apparent spike in the case rate in Clackmannanshire is a statistical anomaly related to its very small size. It's not even the first occasion on which that local authority has stuck out like a sore thumb, for exactly that reason, in recent times.
Clackmannanshire has Glenochil Prison in the locality that has often registered high case numbers.
Ah. A Scottish Rutland in more ways than one, then?
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
That will be Caltech?
It’s a bit like describing the Huntington as a small garden in a desert
Or describing Cambridge (UK) as a working class town. Huntingdon is very nice. Who needs Getty?.
I do have a soft spot for LACMA, but Getty leaves me cold.
Huntingdon & Jacquemart-André are my top museums although Frick is very good as well.
I like the Getty, because it's just ten minutes from my house, and has an excellent restaurant.
My wife used to work there so I have to turn up occasionally but, frankly, I’ve seen better art in Wiltshire
Hillsborough (which is awful) just looks risible compared to Covid-19
Ninety odd deaths, compared to..... 150,000, and maybe 10million worldwide
Covid is going to reframe our perception of "news stories"
Today's American mass shooting passed almost without notice.
Rising American crime rates are a massive untold story. Portland has recorded a 950% increase in the murder rate, as Black Lives Matter riots in the centre, and tries to defund the police.
If this continues I can see a Republican prez candidate, in 2024, making much hay
Who could have guessed....The West Coast in particular has been going down the shitter even before 2020....why are so many fleeing to Arizona, Utah, Texas and Colorado.
Portland, Oregon
This has been going on for a YEAR
"Portland Police were hit with mortar fireworks from #antifa when they retreated from the riot. Antifa set a large fire on the side of the Justice Center that required police & the fire department to respond."
Hillsborough (which is awful) just looks risible compared to Covid-19
Ninety odd deaths, compared to..... 150,000, and maybe 10million worldwide
Covid is going to reframe our perception of "news stories"
Today's American mass shooting passed almost without notice.
Rising American crime rates are a massive untold story. Portland has recorded a 950% increase in the murder rate, as Black Lives Matter riots in the centre, and tries to defund the police.
If this continues I can see a Republican prez candidate, in 2024, making much hay
Who could have guessed....The West Coast in particular has been going down the shitter even before 2020....why are so many fleeing to Arizona, Utah, Texas and Colorado.
Portland, Oregon
This has been going on for a YEAR
"Portland Police were hit with mortar fireworks from #antifa when they retreated from the riot. Antifa set a large fire on the side of the Justice Center that required police & the fire department to respond."
Yeap, it never stops...and the local government just blame white supremists for stoking tensions etc.
Portland used to be ace, weird and quirky, but small and safe city, where generally everybody just got along. Now downtown is so often a warzone, with the idiots smashing up shops on a near nightly basis. No business is going to put up with that for long.
Hillsborough (which is awful) just looks risible compared to Covid-19
Ninety odd deaths, compared to..... 150,000, and maybe 10million worldwide
Covid is going to reframe our perception of "news stories"
Today's American mass shooting passed almost without notice.
Rising American crime rates are a massive untold story. Portland has recorded a 950% increase in the murder rate, as Black Lives Matter riots in the centre, and tries to defund the police.
If this continues I can see a Republican prez candidate, in 2024, making much hay
Who could have guessed....The West Coast in particular has been going down the shitter even before 2020....why are so many fleeing to Arizona, Utah, Texas and Colorado.
So good news for the Democrats then. Spreading their voters about.
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
That will be Caltech?
It’s a bit like describing the Huntington as a small garden in a desert
Or describing Cambridge (UK) as a working class town. Huntingdon is very nice. Who needs Getty?.
I do have a soft spot for LACMA, but Getty leaves me cold.
Huntingdon & Jacquemart-André are my top museums although Frick is very good as well.
I like the Getty, because it's just ten minutes from my house, and has an excellent restaurant.
My wife used to work there so I have to turn up occasionally but, frankly, I’ve seen better art in Wiltshire
The Getty was exquisite when it was that Roman villa in the Californian sun. An amazing place. The new museum is oddly disappointing, despite some ace art, fine views and good food - as rcs says.
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
That will be Caltech?
It’s a bit like describing the Huntington as a small garden in a desert
Or describing Cambridge (UK) as a working class town. Huntingdon is very nice. Who needs Getty?.
I do have a soft spot for LACMA, but Getty leaves me cold.
Huntingdon & Jacquemart-André are my top museums although Frick is very good as well.
I like the Getty, because it's just ten minutes from my house, and has an excellent restaurant.
My wife used to work there so I have to turn up occasionally but, frankly, I’ve seen better art in Wiltshire
Hillsborough (which is awful) just looks risible compared to Covid-19
Ninety odd deaths, compared to..... 150,000, and maybe 10million worldwide
Covid is going to reframe our perception of "news stories"
Today's American mass shooting passed almost without notice.
Rising American crime rates are a massive untold story. Portland has recorded a 950% increase in the murder rate, as Black Lives Matter riots in the centre, and tries to defund the police.
If this continues I can see a Republican prez candidate, in 2024, making much hay
Who could have guessed....The West Coast in particular has been going down the shitter even before 2020....why are so many fleeing to Arizona, Utah, Texas and Colorado.
So good news for the Democrats then. Spreading their voters about.
Understandably, Texans are less than impressed by "Defund the Police" coming to their hometowns, spread by Democrats fleeing the consequences of "Defund the Police"
Just accidentally glimpsed "Live at the Apollo". It is allegedly "Comedy". The finishing gag failed terribly so the female stand up quickly added a "well fuck Brexit" line, and got a tired, meaningless laugh. Not even 6th form level
Is that it? Is that modern British comedy?
I realise I sound like a wearied old scrote (I am) but I haven't seen a talented new British comedian for a decade. All the funny ones are OLD like me
Can any young PB-ers show me the exciting young comic talent?
Just accidentally glimpsed "Live at the Apollo". It is allegedly "Comedy". The finishing gag failed terribly so the female stand up quickly added a "well fuck Brexit" line, and got a tired, meaningless laugh. Not even 6th form level
Is that it? Is that modern British comedy?
I realise I sound like a wearied old scrote (I am) but I haven't seen a talented new British comedian for a decade. All the funny ones are OLD like me
Can any young PB-ers show me the exciting young comic talent?
I think again this is where the old YouTubes comes in....why do all that stand up nonsense, when you can make funny videos from your bedroom or can make stunts / sketch videos that will pay more than a month of tours smelly comedy clubs.
Also, I think the likes of Jongleurs failing has hit the industry hard. You had to be good to survive on that circuit. People went to those nights every week and were very rowdy, so on the rotation for your 15-20 mins, you couldn't get away with no new material or trying the same crap you did last month.
If you had tried week after week of Brexit is shit at a Jongleurs back in the day, you would have stuff thrown at you within seconds.
Now loads of the established names just do the panel shows, where editing and preparation will make any of them look good.
Hillsborough (which is awful) just looks risible compared to Covid-19
Ninety odd deaths, compared to..... 150,000, and maybe 10million worldwide
Covid is going to reframe our perception of "news stories"
Today's American mass shooting passed almost without notice.
Rising American crime rates are a massive untold story. Portland has recorded a 950% increase in the murder rate, as Black Lives Matter riots in the centre, and tries to defund the police.
Overall, murders are up 18% year to date in New York at 132. Which puts New York well ahead of London, which is on just 42.
But the pandemic has dramatically changed what and where crimes have happened: robbery and burglary have collapsed.
The image you paint is of city centres being increasingly lawless. But your chance of getting murdered on the street in New York is actually down. Your chance on getting murdered at home - on the other hand - has gone through the roof.
Just accidentally glimpsed "Live at the Apollo". It is allegedly "Comedy". The finishing gag failed terribly so the female stand up quickly added a "well fuck Brexit" line, and got a tired, meaningless laugh. Not even 6th form level
Is that it? Is that modern British comedy?
I realise I sound like a wearied old scrote (I am) but I haven't seen a talented new British comedian for a decade. All the funny ones are OLD like me
Can any young PB-ers show me the exciting young comic talent?
Lee Hurst, Geoff Norcott. Not young, not exciting, and not even funny, but bang on message.
Just accidentally glimpsed "Live at the Apollo". It is allegedly "Comedy". The finishing gag failed terribly so the female stand up quickly added a "well fuck Brexit" line, and got a tired, meaningless laugh. Not even 6th form level
Is that it? Is that modern British comedy?
I realise I sound like a wearied old scrote (I am) but I haven't seen a talented new British comedian for a decade. All the funny ones are OLD like me
Can any young PB-ers show me the exciting young comic talent?
I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.
They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.
Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.
Crap investment.
The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)
Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.
Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.
Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
80% of very little is very little.
Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.
Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.
It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.
A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.
Etc.
They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)
Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?
Here's two things to remember:
(1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.
(2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.
Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.
And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.
But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?
Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.
Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.
We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!
The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
That will be Caltech?
It’s a bit like describing the Huntington as a small garden in a desert
Or describing Cambridge (UK) as a working class town. Huntingdon is very nice. Who needs Getty?.
I do have a soft spot for LACMA, but Getty leaves me cold.
Huntingdon & Jacquemart-André are my top museums although Frick is very good as well.
I like the Getty, because it's just ten minutes from my house, and has an excellent restaurant.
My wife used to work there so I have to turn up occasionally but, frankly, I’ve seen better art in Wiltshire
The Getty was exquisite when it was that Roman villa in the Californian sun. An amazing place. The new museum is oddly disappointing, despite some ace art, fine views and good food - as rcs says.
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
That will be Caltech?
It’s a bit like describing the Huntington as a small garden in a desert
Or describing Cambridge (UK) as a working class town. Huntingdon is very nice. Who needs Getty?.
I do have a soft spot for LACMA, but Getty leaves me cold.
Huntingdon & Jacquemart-André are my top museums although Frick is very good as well.
I like the Getty, because it's just ten minutes from my house, and has an excellent restaurant.
My wife used to work there so I have to turn up occasionally but, frankly, I’ve seen better art in Wiltshire
The Getty was exquisite when it was that Roman villa in the Californian sun. An amazing place. The new museum is oddly disappointing, despite some ace art, fine views and good food - as rcs says.
The villa is still there, and is (once it reopens) a fun afternoon out. I agree that the Getty center itself is... dull...
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
That will be Caltech?
It’s a bit like describing the Huntington as a small garden in a desert
Or describing Cambridge (UK) as a working class town. Huntingdon is very nice. Who needs Getty?.
I do have a soft spot for LACMA, but Getty leaves me cold.
Huntingdon & Jacquemart-André are my top museums although Frick is very good as well.
I like the Getty, because it's just ten minutes from my house, and has an excellent restaurant.
My wife used to work there so I have to turn up occasionally but, frankly, I’ve seen better art in Wiltshire
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
That will be Caltech?
It’s a bit like describing the Huntington as a small garden in a desert
Or describing Cambridge (UK) as a working class town. Huntingdon is very nice. Who needs Getty?.
I do have a soft spot for LACMA, but Getty leaves me cold.
Huntingdon & Jacquemart-André are my top museums although Frick is very good as well.
I like the Getty, because it's just ten minutes from my house, and has an excellent restaurant.
My wife used to work there so I have to turn up occasionally but, frankly, I’ve seen better art in Wiltshire
Boulevard? At the Hammer?
(Ducks.)
Outside the Chinese theatre
If you get a chance, you should go to the Hammer Museum in Westwood. It's tiny but fun.
Hillsborough (which is awful) just looks risible compared to Covid-19
Ninety odd deaths, compared to..... 150,000, and maybe 10million worldwide
Covid is going to reframe our perception of "news stories"
Today's American mass shooting passed almost without notice.
Rising American crime rates are a massive untold story. Portland has recorded a 950% increase in the murder rate, as Black Lives Matter riots in the centre, and tries to defund the police.
Overall, murders are up 18% year to date in New York at 132. Which puts New York well ahead of London, which is on just 42.
But the pandemic has dramatically changed what and where crimes have happened: robbery and burglary have collapsed.
The image you paint is of city centres being increasingly lawless. But your chance of getting murdered on the street in New York is actually down. Your chance on getting murdered at home - on the other hand - has gone through the roof.
Hmm
"In 2021 alone, 299 people have been shot, a 54% increase over the same time last year, and the most the city has seen since 2012.
"Ninety-two people have been murdered, a 19.5% jump, according to the most recent NYPD data. In 2020, the city recorded 462 murders, an increase of 45% from 2019, even as most other major felonies declined. Shooting incidents overall exploded 97% last year.
"New York is not unique. Murders across the United States rose an estimated 25% in 2020, according to preliminary data from the FBI, the largest increase since modern crime statistics have been compiled. Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles all had higher murder rates than New York City in 2020."
Hillsborough (which is awful) just looks risible compared to Covid-19
Ninety odd deaths, compared to..... 150,000, and maybe 10million worldwide
Covid is going to reframe our perception of "news stories"
Today's American mass shooting passed almost without notice.
Rising American crime rates are a massive untold story. Portland has recorded an apparent 950% increase in the murder rate, as Black Lives Matter riots in the centre, and tries to defund the police.
Just accidentally glimpsed "Live at the Apollo". It is allegedly "Comedy". The finishing gag failed terribly so the female stand up quickly added a "well fuck Brexit" line, and got a tired, meaningless laugh. Not even 6th form level
Is that it? Is that modern British comedy?
I realise I sound like a wearied old scrote (I am) but I haven't seen a talented new British comedian for a decade. All the funny ones are OLD like me
Can any young PB-ers show me the exciting young comic talent?
Olga Koch is very good.
Presumably Live at the Apollo is just re-runs from the days BC?
Still patiently waiting for a date for jab 1. Sigh.
Are you under 30 ?
Under 40. Just about!
You can use the national booking system.
Stupid question but is it applicable in Scotland? I'm under the impression I just get told via letter when it finally arrives.
If I can book it then hell yes
You should have been able to book on the. Scottish NHS site already, registration is open to 18-29 year olds so 30s is deffo open.
Thanks - did have a look, just checked but apparently still have to wait for the letter.
"You can register for a coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination when you're invited to by NHS Scotland through their online self-referral service.
Those aged 18 to 29 (as of 17 May 2021) are currently being invited to register for their coronavirus vaccine.
If you're aged 30 and over you will not be able to self-register as these appointments are currently being processed. You'll receive your blue envelope in the post. "
That's completely idiotic.
The young uns don't get appointments till the 30 somethings have - I believe they are being given ones that open up as time goes on (refusals, not able to be vaxxed etc.). It's to do, I think ,with the very methodical Scottish approach by age group.
Hillsborough (which is awful) just looks risible compared to Covid-19
Ninety odd deaths, compared to..... 150,000, and maybe 10million worldwide
Covid is going to reframe our perception of "news stories"
Today's American mass shooting passed almost without notice.
Rising American crime rates are a massive untold story. Portland has recorded a 950% increase in the murder rate, as Black Lives Matter riots in the centre, and tries to defund the police.
Overall, murders are up 18% year to date in New York at 132. Which puts New York well ahead of London, which is on just 42.
But the pandemic has dramatically changed what and where crimes have happened: robbery and burglary have collapsed.
The image you paint is of city centres being increasingly lawless. But your chance of getting murdered on the street in New York is actually down. Your chance on getting murdered at home - on the other hand - has gone through the roof.
Hmm
"In 2021 alone, 299 people have been shot, a 54% increase over the same time last year, and the most the city has seen since 2012.
"Ninety-two people have been murdered, a 19.5% jump, according to the most recent NYPD data. In 2020, the city recorded 462 murders, an increase of 45% from 2019, even as most other major felonies declined. Shooting incidents overall exploded 97% last year.
"New York is not unique. Murders across the United States rose an estimated 25% in 2020, according to preliminary data from the FBI, the largest increase since modern crime statistics have been compiled. Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles all had higher murder rates than New York City in 2020."
Hillsborough (which is awful) just looks risible compared to Covid-19
Ninety odd deaths, compared to..... 150,000, and maybe 10million worldwide
Covid is going to reframe our perception of "news stories"
Today's American mass shooting passed almost without notice.
Rising American crime rates are a massive untold story. Portland has recorded an apparent 950% increase in the murder rate, as Black Lives Matter riots in the centre, and tries to defund the police.
Hillsborough (which is awful) just looks risible compared to Covid-19
Ninety odd deaths, compared to..... 150,000, and maybe 10million worldwide
Covid is going to reframe our perception of "news stories"
Today's American mass shooting passed almost without notice.
Rising American crime rates are a massive untold story. Portland has recorded a 950% increase in the murder rate, as Black Lives Matter riots in the centre, and tries to defund the police.
Overall, murders are up 18% year to date in New York at 132. Which puts New York well ahead of London, which is on just 42.
But the pandemic has dramatically changed what and where crimes have happened: robbery and burglary have collapsed.
The image you paint is of city centres being increasingly lawless. But your chance of getting murdered on the street in New York is actually down. Your chance on getting murdered at home - on the other hand - has gone through the roof.
Hmm
"In 2021 alone, 299 people have been shot, a 54% increase over the same time last year, and the most the city has seen since 2012.
"Ninety-two people have been murdered, a 19.5% jump, according to the most recent NYPD data. In 2020, the city recorded 462 murders, an increase of 45% from 2019, even as most other major felonies declined. Shooting incidents overall exploded 97% last year.
"New York is not unique. Murders across the United States rose an estimated 25% in 2020, according to preliminary data from the FBI, the largest increase since modern crime statistics have been compiled. Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles all had higher murder rates than New York City in 2020."
And my main point is that this will surely fire up Republicans - if Biden is seen to preside over increasing lawlessness in America's great cities
It's worth digging into the data.
I'm not denying there's a lot more shooting. Nor am I denying that it could well be a complete godsend for the Republicans given "defund the police". I'm just pointing out the NY Police data (to end April) has shootings at home up from 311 to 455 year-over-year. And I do wonder how much of that is lockdown related.
Hillsborough (which is awful) just looks risible compared to Covid-19
Ninety odd deaths, compared to..... 150,000, and maybe 10million worldwide
Covid is going to reframe our perception of "news stories"
Today's American mass shooting passed almost without notice.
Rising American crime rates are a massive untold story. Portland has recorded a 950% increase in the murder rate, as Black Lives Matter riots in the centre, and tries to defund the police.
Overall, murders are up 18% year to date in New York at 132. Which puts New York well ahead of London, which is on just 42.
But the pandemic has dramatically changed what and where crimes have happened: robbery and burglary have collapsed.
The image you paint is of city centres being increasingly lawless. But your chance of getting murdered on the street in New York is actually down. Your chance on getting murdered at home - on the other hand - has gone through the roof.
Hmm
"In 2021 alone, 299 people have been shot, a 54% increase over the same time last year, and the most the city has seen since 2012.
"Ninety-two people have been murdered, a 19.5% jump, according to the most recent NYPD data. In 2020, the city recorded 462 murders, an increase of 45% from 2019, even as most other major felonies declined. Shooting incidents overall exploded 97% last year.
"New York is not unique. Murders across the United States rose an estimated 25% in 2020, according to preliminary data from the FBI, the largest increase since modern crime statistics have been compiled. Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles all had higher murder rates than New York City in 2020."
I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.
They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.
Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.
Crap investment.
The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)
Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.
Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.
Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
80% of very little is very little.
Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.
Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.
It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.
A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.
Etc.
They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)
Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?
Here's two things to remember:
(1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.
(2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.
Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.
And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.
But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?
Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.
Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.
We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!
The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
That will be Caltech?
It’s a bit like describing the Huntington as a small garden in a desert
Or describing Cambridge (UK) as a working class town. Huntingdon is very nice. Who needs Getty?.
I do have a soft spot for LACMA, but Getty leaves me cold.
Huntingdon & Jacquemart-André are my top museums although Frick is very good as well.
I like the Getty, because it's just ten minutes from my house, and has an excellent restaurant.
My wife used to work there so I have to turn up occasionally but, frankly, I’ve seen better art in Wiltshire
The Getty was exquisite when it was that Roman villa in the Californian sun. An amazing place. The new museum is oddly disappointing, despite some ace art, fine views and good food - as rcs says.
The Getty Villa is still open
But the villa was exquisite mainly BECAUSE it contained all the great art, concentrated. It really was like a Roman aristocrat had been translocated to sunny California, with his fine artworks. Lovely
The new museum is huge but that means it dilutes the collection and spreads it thinly, and Getty is not the Louvre or the National Gallery, it is a very decent private ensemble, but no more
Also the modern architecture is just bland, whereas the villa was a little jewel
I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.
They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.
Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.
Crap investment.
The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)
Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.
Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.
Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
80% of very little is very little.
Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.
Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.
It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.
A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.
Etc.
They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)
Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?
Here's two things to remember:
(1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.
(2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.
Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.
And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.
But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?
Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.
Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.
We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!
The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
Hang on.
In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.
My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.
Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
Comments
A lot of people got very unhappy when the final reveal was that the key villain (Spoiler alert!) wasn't a criminal mastermind. He was greedy and dishonest, sure, but also profoundly mediocre. The worst version of Everyman. The fact that the worst version of Everyman, the worst version of all of us, can be so malignant is an uncomfortable realisation.
It suits some Boris backers to think that their opponents see Johnson as the Devil. It's such an absurdity that it means they don't have to think about the real issues. And yes, some people have wound themselves up so much that they do push their criticisms of Johnson to ridiculous levels.
But that doesn't alter the observation that Johnsonism is a bad way of running a country. It makes the United Kingdom an objectively worse place to live- and not just because of the increased risk that you will stop living. And to a large extent, that was predictable and predicted.
Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
Just received an email from Argos.
Apparently, their algorithms know what would make my Bank Holiday perfect.
A robot dinosaur, a chandelier and a Dyson.
Come to think of it...
Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.
Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.
It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.
A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.
Etc.
They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
The costs are low enough now that the IRR is comfortably superior to risk free alternatives for properly scoped residential cases. And actually risk bearing alternatives too.
Although I defer to Sean and TSE in all matters BUD related
Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?
Here's two things to remember:
(1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.
(2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.
Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.
And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.
But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?
Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1397659590590926848/photo/1
Tackling the climate emergency and realising the enormous potential that transitioning to a green economy holds, is the defining challenge of the next decade.
https://labourlist.org/2021/05/exclusive-labour-launches-just-transition-climate-working-group/
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1397605937800699905?s=20
The fact is that most residential properties are not properly scoped. People are oversold on the benefits and are promised the world, and they wont get the world. People should be clear what they are getting.
They might be getting *some* free electricity in around 25 years time. Maybe 15 or 20 years time at best, assuming the system doesn't fail or break before that time, or you move. Is that worth the expense?
The latest poll as follows:
AfD-ID: 26% (+2)
CDU-EPP: 25% (-5)
LINKE-LEFT: 13% (-3)
GRÜNE-G/EFA: 11% (+6)
SPD-S&D: 10% (-1)
FDP-RE: 8% (+3)
Changes on the 2016 election result.
The current Land Government is a coalition of the CDU, SPD and Greens with the FDP not in the Parliament having just missed out last time. As elsewhere, the Greens are advancing as the Union retreats.
The latest Forsa poll as follows:
GRÜNE-G/EFA: 25% (+16)
CDU/CSU-EPP: 24% (-9)
SPD-S&D: 14% (-7)
FDP-RE: 13% (+2)
AfD-ID: 10% (-3)
LINKE-LEFT: 6% (-3)
Changes with the 2017 Bundestag election result.
Again, we see the FDP advancing and Linke flirting with dropping below the 5% threshold for representation but it's the huge switch to the Greens from the Union and the SPD that catches the eye. Greens+SPD+FDP = 52%.
Any major outbreak is therefore likely to be concentrated in younger age cohorts.
"You can register for a coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination when you're invited to by NHS Scotland through their online self-referral service.
Those aged 18 to 29 (as of 17 May 2021) are currently being invited to register for their coronavirus vaccine.
If you're aged 30 and over you will not be able to self-register as these appointments are currently being processed. You'll receive your blue envelope in the post. "
Vaccination-wise, the EU is roughly where the UK was eight weeks ago.
Take off a couple of weeks because everyone is going to accelerate even more next month. (The more doses per day, the fewer days it takes to catch up the accumulated gap at the end.)
Take off a couple of weeks because OAZ takes a bit longer to get to useful immunity, and the UK's 12 week gap strategy works against it at this point. Even if it was sensible to prioritise 1st does in January to March.
Take off a couple of weeks because the UK is being more cautious in reopening. Because, bluntly, the government has no choice now, having ballsed up lockdowns and reopenings so badly thus far.
France, in particular, would love to get back to normal on July 14th- so about 3 weeks behind the UK. As long as there are no nasty surprises, that will probably be do-able.
Neil Henderson
@hendopolis
·
6m
TELEGRAPH: Cummings takes his revenge as he lays blame on Johnson and Hancock #TomorrowsPapersToday
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1397659968141201410
Perhaps they think it's better to get students or whatever that way given they might not be near their home GP, or something?
If they were doing as well on vaccines, I think there would be more of an attitude of shrug, well so they should have done this.
Horray for cheap gizmos.
Like a time bomb attached to the keel beneath the waves
Sometimes a lucky general is better than a good one.
Ninety odd deaths, compared to..... 150,000, and maybe 10million worldwide
Covid is going to reframe our perception of "news stories"
No one expected Boris to be a good but boring manager, they expected this of Macron
France has a death toll nearly as bad as ours, and of course they demanded the ineffectual EU vaccine drive
Vaccines its the opposite, everybody thinks UK is world leading, which we are, and that nobody in the EU is getting vaccinated, when now the likes of Germany have got their act together.
For the UK the good things were getting vaccines, testing and PPE production going well, often from nothing.
The bad things were appalling border control and the lack of a general public health campaign.
https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1397278471605215232?s=20
If this continues I can see a Republican prez candidate, in 2024, making much hay
Portland's number looks enormous, because it's compared to an incredibly small number for 2019.
This has been going on for a YEAR
"Portland Police were hit with mortar fireworks from #antifa when they retreated from the riot. Antifa set a large fire on the side of the Justice Center that required police & the fire department to respond."
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1397421559619325954?s=20
GUARDIAN: ‘Tens of thousands of people died who didn’t need to die’ #TomorrowsPapersToday
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1397664901984833538
Portland used to be ace, weird and quirky, but small and safe city, where generally everybody just got along. Now downtown is so often a warzone, with the idiots smashing up shops on a near nightly basis. No business is going to put up with that for long.
(Ducks.)
It has simply become one of those every couple of weeks shrugs sadly.
Is that it? Is that modern British comedy?
I realise I sound like a wearied old scrote (I am) but I haven't seen a talented new British comedian for a decade. All the funny ones are OLD like me
Can any young PB-ers show me the exciting young comic talent?
Also, I think the likes of Jongleurs failing has hit the industry hard. You had to be good to survive on that circuit. People went to those nights every week and were very rowdy, so on the rotation for your 15-20 mins, you couldn't get away with no new material or trying the same crap you did last month.
If you had tried week after week of Brexit is shit at a Jongleurs back in the day, you would have stuff thrown at you within seconds.
Now loads of the established names just do the panel shows, where editing and preparation will make any of them look good.
Overall, murders are up 18% year to date in New York at 132. Which puts New York well ahead of London, which is on just 42.
But the pandemic has dramatically changed what and where crimes have happened: robbery and burglary have collapsed.
The image you paint is of city centres being increasingly lawless. But your chance of getting murdered on the street in New York is actually down. Your chance on getting murdered at home - on the other hand - has gone through the roof.
Goalie vs goalie. Never seen that before.
Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.
We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!
The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
But the views make up for that quite a lot.
Wilford missed, then scored when his turn came round again!
Great tip.
"In 2021 alone, 299 people have been shot, a 54% increase over the same time last year, and the most the city has seen since 2012.
"Ninety-two people have been murdered, a 19.5% jump, according to the most recent NYPD data. In 2020, the city recorded 462 murders, an increase of 45% from 2019, even as most other major felonies declined. Shooting incidents overall exploded 97% last year.
"New York is not unique. Murders across the United States rose an estimated 25% in 2020, according to preliminary data from the FBI, the largest increase since modern crime statistics have been compiled. Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles all had higher murder rates than New York City in 2020."
https://gothamist.com/news/why-are-shootings-and-murders-rise-nyc
I don't think "Defund the Police" *helps*
And my main point is that this will surely fire up Republicans - if Biden is seen to preside over increasing lawlessness in America's great cities
Presumably Live at the Apollo is just re-runs from the days BC?
Wasn't that under Trump?
I'm not denying there's a lot more shooting. Nor am I denying that it could well be a complete godsend for the Republicans given "defund the police". I'm just pointing out the NY Police data (to end April) has shootings at home up from 311 to 455 year-over-year. And I do wonder how much of that is lockdown related.
The new museum is huge but that means it dilutes the collection and spreads it thinly, and Getty is not the Louvre or the National Gallery, it is a very decent private ensemble, but no more
Also the modern architecture is just bland, whereas the villa was a little jewel
In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.
My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.
Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.