Until we are able to transition away from plastics we are still going to need oil even if it is not for ‘fossil fuels’
Will no one ever think of the balance of payments in their virtue gesturing? Not developing this source does nothing to reduce our energy consumption, it simply means we import it instead. This is gesture politics at its most pathetic, damaging and bloody stupid.
Off topic, but last night one of the ScotNit bores was excitedly noting that Sweden easily outperformed 'team Boris' at the Olympics per capita.
I was reading on a device I couldn't respond on, but did think it was a stupid argument given they can field a full teasm rather than in proportion to population.
Now I've looked at the final medal table it's even more daft as we've crushed Sweden per capita.
Off topic, but last night one of the ScotNit bores was excitedly noting that Sweden easily outperformed 'team Boris' at the Olympics per capita.
I was reading on a device I couldn't respond on, but did think it was a stupid argument given they can field a full teasm rather than in proportion to population.
Now I've looked at the final medal table it's even more daft as we've crushed Sweden per capita.
You’re saying that particular poster wasn’t telling the truth?
Until we are able to transition away from plastics we are still going to need oil even if it is not for ‘fossil fuels’
Will no one ever think of the balance of payments in their virtue gesturing? Not developing this source does nothing to reduce our energy consumption, it simply means we import it instead. This is gesture politics at its most pathetic, damaging and bloody stupid.
If its viable we develop it. Simples.
Starmer seemed pretty fast out of the blocks to oppose it. No wonder labour are doing so poorly. Still pandering to Exctinction rebellion and their ilk seems to matter more.
Demand for petrol and diesel will fall considerably in the next few years as battery powered or hydrogen powered cars are phased in.
So why have indoor team sports never taken hold in the UK ?
Because our indoor playing facilities are a bit shit?
They're just a bit naff. My wife and I were watching the volleyball earlier in the Olympics. In an uncharacteristic fit of anger, she declared that if when we were first dating I had declared myself to he a keen volleyball player she would have probably called it off then and there. Go on - picture a keen volleyball player, and try to respect him. Tricky, isn't it? Even with individual sports, we respect the outdoor competitors over the indoor competitors. That's not to say these sports aren't fun, or don't require talent. I very much enjoy badminton, table tennis, pickleball, etc.
Until we are able to transition away from plastics we are still going to need oil even if it is not for ‘fossil fuels’
Will no one ever think of the balance of payments in their virtue gesturing? Not developing this source does nothing to reduce our energy consumption, it simply means we import it instead. This is gesture politics at its most pathetic, damaging and bloody stupid.
If its viable we develop it. Simples.
Starmer seemed pretty fast out of the blocks to oppose it. No wonder labour are doing so poorly. Still pandering to Exctinction rebellion and their ilk seems to matter more.
Demand for petrol and diesel will fall considerably in the next few years as battery powered or hydrogen powered cars are phased in.
Yes it will and I am all for the government taking policy steps to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels (even if the same money could have a much bigger global impact spent elsewhere). But that is a commercial decision for those who want to exploit it: will there still be a sufficient demand and a sufficiently high price by the time that the oil is out the ground? It is absolutely not a reason to prevent its development.
If that is his position Starmer is being an arse. Again.
Until we are able to transition away from plastics we are still going to need oil even if it is not for ‘fossil fuels’
Will no one ever think of the balance of payments in their virtue gesturing? Not developing this source does nothing to reduce our energy consumption, it simply means we import it instead. This is gesture politics at its most pathetic, damaging and bloody stupid.
If its viable we develop it. Simples.
What do you think Starmer is interested in - blokes working on an oil rig or the 'ordinary folk of Dartmouth Park' ?
Until we are able to transition away from plastics we are still going to need oil even if it is not for ‘fossil fuels’
Will no one ever think of the balance of payments in their virtue gesturing? Not developing this source does nothing to reduce our energy consumption, it simply means we import it instead. This is gesture politics at its most pathetic, damaging and bloody stupid.
If its viable we develop it. Simples.
What do you think Starmer is interested in - blokes working on an oil rig or the 'ordinary folk of Dartmouth Park' ?
You know what? I always like to think well of people but just maybe he's not very good.
Off topic, but last night one of the ScotNit bores was excitedly noting that Sweden easily outperformed 'team Boris' at the Olympics per capita.
I was reading on a device I couldn't respond on, but did think it was a stupid argument given they can field a full teasm rather than in proportion to population.
Now I've looked at the final medal table it's even more daft as we've crushed Sweden per capita.
I'm always slightly grumpy about using 'we' to describe British success - as if I, personally, can take any credit (just as I I always gently mock my in-laws for using 'we' to describe Tottenham Hotspur as if they were playing) but for the rowers etc I suppose 'we' makes some sense if we've ever bought a lottery ticket. But for these self-funded athletes this taking-the-credit-vicariously seems genuinely misplaced.
So why have indoor team sports never taken hold in the UK ?
Because our indoor playing facilities are a bit shit?
They're just a bit naff. My wife and I were watching the volleyball earlier in the Olympics. In an uncharacteristic fit of anger, she declared that if when we were first dating I had declared myself to he a keen volleyball player she would have probably called it off then and there. Go on - picture a keen volleyball player, and try to respect him. Tricky, isn't it? Even with individual sports, we respect the outdoor competitors over the indoor competitors. That's not to say these sports aren't fun, or don't require talent. I very much enjoy badminton, table tennis, pickleball, etc.
Not sure that's a universal rule. It was easily the most popular sport at my school, though partly because the teams were mixed-sex. Table tennis was popular too. Almost nobody was very interested in running and gymnastics was just a pain.
So why have indoor team sports never taken hold in the UK ?
Because our indoor playing facilities are a bit shit?
They're just a bit naff. My wife and I were watching the volleyball earlier in the Olympics. In an uncharacteristic fit of anger, she declared that if when we were first dating I had declared myself to he a keen volleyball player she would have probably called it off then and there. Go on - picture a keen volleyball player, and try to respect him. Tricky, isn't it? Even with individual sports, we respect the outdoor competitors over the indoor competitors. That's not to say these sports aren't fun, or don't require talent. I very much enjoy badminton, table tennis, pickleball, etc.
Not sure that's a universal rule. It was easily the most popular sport at my school, though partly because the teams were mixed-sex. Table tennis was popular too. Almost nobody was very interested in running and gymnastics was just a pain.
Until we are able to transition away from plastics we are still going to need oil even if it is not for ‘fossil fuels’
Will no one ever think of the balance of payments in their virtue gesturing? Not developing this source does nothing to reduce our energy consumption, it simply means we import it instead. This is gesture politics at its most pathetic, damaging and bloody stupid.
If its viable we develop it. Simples.
Starmer seemed pretty fast out of the blocks to oppose it. No wonder labour are doing so poorly. Still pandering to Exctinction rebellion and their ilk seems to matter more.
Demand for petrol and diesel will fall considerably in the next few years as battery powered or hydrogen powered cars are phased in.
Yes it will and I am all for the government taking policy steps to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels (even if the same money could have a much bigger global impact spent elsewhere). But that is a commercial decision for those who want to exploit it: will there still be a sufficient demand and a sufficiently high price by the time that the oil is out the ground? It is absolutely not a reason to prevent its development.
If that is his position Starmer is being an arse. Again.
Like you I am absolutely in support of measures to reduce our demands on fossil fuels for a variety of reasons including environmental. Development and innovation in this industry has been rapid and renewables is a thriving industry.
One of my former employers are developing hydrogen boilers for domestic use. That’s got to be better than ground or air source heat pumps.
Starmer is hopeless, labour would have probably been better off with Nandy. I expect he has opposed it to be seen to be doing the ‘right thing’. It’s political policy at the behest of the guardian comment is free section.
Interesting to work out which country has done WORST at these Olympics, taking into account gdp, gdp per capita, and population.
I think it might be Mexico. Vast population: 127m. Medium income with some high income areas
FOUR BRONZE MEDALS
Is wondering about that sort of thing what overdoing the chilli does for you? Personally I try to look for people's successes....... bright side and all that. Congrats to Fiji; two rugby sevens medals. Maybe the women will win gold next time.
(Edit; poor proof-reading before posting!)
To be fair, my mother in law and I were wondering about that sort of thing too last night. We proposed Pakistan, who I have seen no representation from at all.
If squash were included we would. Why it is not there I have no idea. I understand why it wasn't years ago when the Olympics was all ameauter and Squash was an open sport, but why since?
She is trying to negotiate a coalition with the Greens at the moment. Who will fit into her government perfectly on the evidence of Andy WIghtman's piece yesterday: poisonous, obsessed by trans rights, back stabbers who bend and disregard the rules on a whim and incompetent. It's a match made in heaven.
Until we are able to transition away from plastics we are still going to need oil even if it is not for ‘fossil fuels’
Will no one ever think of the balance of payments in their virtue gesturing? Not developing this source does nothing to reduce our energy consumption, it simply means we import it instead. This is gesture politics at its most pathetic, damaging and bloody stupid.
If its viable we develop it. Simples.
Starmer seemed pretty fast out of the blocks to oppose it. No wonder labour are doing so poorly. Still pandering to Exctinction rebellion and their ilk seems to matter more.
Demand for petrol and diesel will fall considerably in the next few years as battery powered or hydrogen powered cars are phased in.
Yes it will and I am all for the government taking policy steps to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels (even if the same money could have a much bigger global impact spent elsewhere). But that is a commercial decision for those who want to exploit it: will there still be a sufficient demand and a sufficiently high price by the time that the oil is out the ground? It is absolutely not a reason to prevent its development.
If that is his position Starmer is being an arse. Again.
I've no idea what Starmer's position is on this project, but supply and demand obviously determine the speed of transition, so there's a strong case for rejecting new fossil fuel extraction since it will delay the process. Conservative Surrey has recently rejected a project partly for that reason, and Johnson's comments on the closure of coal mines being helpful for the climate were generally agreed here to be unfortunately delivered but not wrong.
Games at my school was almost always football, and almost always tedious. I got to play tennis, once, during a rare free day (and liked it, messing about with a friend), and hockey, once, and liked it a lot.
Almost the entire rest of the time it was being subjected to the boredom of football.
Until we are able to transition away from plastics we are still going to need oil even if it is not for ‘fossil fuels’
Will no one ever think of the balance of payments in their virtue gesturing? Not developing this source does nothing to reduce our energy consumption, it simply means we import it instead. This is gesture politics at its most pathetic, damaging and bloody stupid.
If its viable we develop it. Simples.
Starmer seemed pretty fast out of the blocks to oppose it. No wonder labour are doing so poorly. Still pandering to Exctinction rebellion and their ilk seems to matter more.
Demand for petrol and diesel will fall considerably in the next few years as battery powered or hydrogen powered cars are phased in.
Yes it will and I am all for the government taking policy steps to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels (even if the same money could have a much bigger global impact spent elsewhere). But that is a commercial decision for those who want to exploit it: will there still be a sufficient demand and a sufficiently high price by the time that the oil is out the ground? It is absolutely not a reason to prevent its development.
If that is his position Starmer is being an arse. Again.
I've no idea what Starmer's position is on this project
Plans to tap a new oil field off Shetland should not be approved, Labour leader Keir Starmer has said. UK authorities are considering whether to allow drilling at the huge Cambo oil field to the west of Scotland. But Sir Keir said this would "give off completely the wrong signal" in the year Scotland is also set to host the COP26 climate conference.
I've no idea what Starmer's position is on this project
Plans to tap a new oil field off Shetland should not be approved, Labour leader Keir Starmer has said. UK authorities are considering whether to allow drilling at the huge Cambo oil field to the west of Scotland. But Sir Keir said this would "give off completely the wrong signal" in the year Scotland is also set to host the COP26 climate conference.
Until we are able to transition away from plastics we are still going to need oil even if it is not for ‘fossil fuels’
Will no one ever think of the balance of payments in their virtue gesturing? Not developing this source does nothing to reduce our energy consumption, it simply means we import it instead. This is gesture politics at its most pathetic, damaging and bloody stupid.
If its viable we develop it. Simples.
Starmer seemed pretty fast out of the blocks to oppose it. No wonder labour are doing so poorly. Still pandering to Exctinction rebellion and their ilk seems to matter more.
Demand for petrol and diesel will fall considerably in the next few years as battery powered or hydrogen powered cars are phased in.
Yes it will and I am all for the government taking policy steps to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels (even if the same money could have a much bigger global impact spent elsewhere). But that is a commercial decision for those who want to exploit it: will there still be a sufficient demand and a sufficiently high price by the time that the oil is out the ground? It is absolutely not a reason to prevent its development.
If that is his position Starmer is being an arse. Again.
I've no idea what Starmer's position is on this project, but supply and demand obviously determine the speed of transition, so there's a strong case for rejecting new fossil fuel extraction since it will delay the process. Conservative Surrey has recently rejected a project partly for that reason, and Johnson's comments on the closure of coal mines being helpful for the climate were generally agreed here to be unfortunately delivered but not wrong.
It's a global market Nick. Do you seriously believe that the output of the Cambo field is going to have a measurable effect on the international oil price? I mean, seriously? Would you rather we imported more fuel extracted from oil shale fields in countries with poorer environmental standards?
So why have indoor team sports never taken hold in the UK ?
Because our indoor playing facilities are a bit shit?
They're just a bit naff. My wife and I were watching the volleyball earlier in the Olympics. In an uncharacteristic fit of anger, she declared that if when we were first dating I had declared myself to he a keen volleyball player she would have probably called it off then and there. Go on - picture a keen volleyball player, and try to respect him. Tricky, isn't it? Even with individual sports, we respect the outdoor competitors over the indoor competitors. That's not to say these sports aren't fun, or don't require talent. I very much enjoy badminton, table tennis, pickleball, etc.
Not sure that's a universal rule. It was easily the most popular sport at my school, though partly because the teams were mixed-sex. Table tennis was popular too. Almost nobody was very interested in running and gymnastics was just a pain.
But weren't you at school in Denmark?
Yes, but Cookie was offering it as a general truth that people don't admire indoor sport, and I was disagreeing with that. Might well be a national thing?
I made those exact points earlier this week and that Sturgeon is hiding in the closet 'frit' to comment, while Starmer happily trashes 1,000 plus Scots jobs
Until we are able to transition away from plastics we are still going to need oil even if it is not for ‘fossil fuels’
Will no one ever think of the balance of payments in their virtue gesturing? Not developing this source does nothing to reduce our energy consumption, it simply means we import it instead. This is gesture politics at its most pathetic, damaging and bloody stupid.
If its viable we develop it. Simples.
Starmer seemed pretty fast out of the blocks to oppose it. No wonder labour are doing so poorly. Still pandering to Exctinction rebellion and their ilk seems to matter more.
Demand for petrol and diesel will fall considerably in the next few years as battery powered or hydrogen powered cars are phased in.
Yes it will and I am all for the government taking policy steps to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels (even if the same money could have a much bigger global impact spent elsewhere). But that is a commercial decision for those who want to exploit it: will there still be a sufficient demand and a sufficiently high price by the time that the oil is out the ground? It is absolutely not a reason to prevent its development.
If that is his position Starmer is being an arse. Again.
I've no idea what Starmer's position is on this project, but supply and demand obviously determine the speed of transition, so there's a strong case for rejecting new fossil fuel extraction since it will delay the process. Conservative Surrey has recently rejected a project partly for that reason, and Johnson's comments on the closure of coal mines being helpful for the climate were generally agreed here to be unfortunately delivered but not wrong.
But oil doesn’t just produce fossil fuels, it is used to produce a variety of other products. Plastics we use in everyday life and still will need. Opposing this is crazy. Until there are viable alternatives that are fully scalable to plastics we will need to produce them.
Politics aside, achieving the same medal total as we did in London, after one of the nastier plagues in the world, in the heat and foreign-ness of Tokyo, is really quite something. Arguably better than Rio
I don't often agree with Leon, but last night I watched the 7:30pm episode of the BBC olympics with Kathy Grainger as guest. I remember her in 2012 being distraught at only winning a silver in her double sculls, only Gold is worth it she said then, and she duely achieved it in 2016. That was the attitude which won the day. Not just in rowing, but cycling as well. The first 20mins of the show was about Helen Glover and partner missing out on a bronze. I swear it was the worst rubbish I ever heard, excuses, weepy backstory and the rest. I really think the BBC has turned into a version of X Factor! Absolute rubbish, and worst of all, Grainger was part of this rubbish. We have turned into a country of British Plucky losers again.
I think that's overdramatizing the situation. They made a particular fuss of Helen Glover because she came back after having kiddies, gave it a good go, and nearly came away with something. More generally, the reviews of the performance of the rowing squad have not been gushing, and questions have been asked.
Meanwhile, elsewhere, the contingents from some other disciplines are doing quite well. It's not exactly an unremitting tale of woe, or of vast numbers of 'if only there were a tin medal for fourth' regrets.
At the end of this Games I anticipate that the British team will be some way short of its performance in Rio, and that there will be some tutting (especially if the track cyclists also win a lot less than in recent times,) but that's not the end of the world. If things improve again in Paris then all will be well; if they don't then people will start to grumble about why we're not spending some of that lottery money on children's hospitals or something instead.
Team GB are still slightly ahead of where they were at the same stage last time:
Though, Team GB isn't going to win many in athletics....I think they only have 2-3 realistic chances in individual events, which none are gold medal favourites. Could quite easily end up with just 1 individual medal and perhaps 1 relay.
It was seven medals last time, with just two golds (thanks Mo Farah); I doubt we'll be far short of that this time.
Where are the 7 coming from? Katarina Johnson-Thompson and Dina Asher Smith are the only two I can think of. Lots of events, no Team GB even got the qualifying time.
I suspect it will be four or five. Jemma Reekie, one or two of the relay teams to add to your list. I could well be wrong - that's the beauty of live sport.
I think that is still very optimistic.
A thing to also consider in this debate. Swimming many events Team GB have finalists, sometimes 2 in the final, and so many where the swimmer is ranked top 3 in the world. The rowing while disappointing, but was there were i think 5 4ths places ...
The athletics, in most events now Team GB don't even really have one competitive athelete who is top 3-4-5 in the world. And many don't even have a single competitor who could make the qualifying mark.
Difficult to win medals if you have a team where most of the competitors don't even have a shot at it.
Yes, I think we will tail off badly in this Olympics and end up with 40-45 medals. We will likely be beaten by Australia and probably 3rd or 4th in Europe behind Fake Russia and maybe Germany or Italy or both
Maybe around 9th in the overall table at the end? Not ignoble, but quite a fall from Rio and London
And frustratingly, Gloucestershire, who started the season so well, now will have nothing to show for it.
Surrey had a team.out yesterday and the only name that was familiar to me was Rikki Clarke who.must be 40 or so. I think the 50 over competition is going to bite the dust in favour of the baseball type competition that is utterly ghastly. Even the 4 day game is being moved about and not given the respect it deserves.
I've no idea what Starmer's position is on this project
Plans to tap a new oil field off Shetland should not be approved, Labour leader Keir Starmer has said. UK authorities are considering whether to allow drilling at the huge Cambo oil field to the west of Scotland. But Sir Keir said this would "give off completely the wrong signal" in the year Scotland is also set to host the COP26 climate conference.
Until we are able to transition away from plastics we are still going to need oil even if it is not for ‘fossil fuels’
Will no one ever think of the balance of payments in their virtue gesturing? Not developing this source does nothing to reduce our energy consumption, it simply means we import it instead. This is gesture politics at its most pathetic, damaging and bloody stupid.
If its viable we develop it. Simples.
Starmer seemed pretty fast out of the blocks to oppose it. No wonder labour are doing so poorly. Still pandering to Exctinction rebellion and their ilk seems to matter more.
Demand for petrol and diesel will fall considerably in the next few years as battery powered or hydrogen powered cars are phased in.
Yes it will and I am all for the government taking policy steps to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels (even if the same money could have a much bigger global impact spent elsewhere). But that is a commercial decision for those who want to exploit it: will there still be a sufficient demand and a sufficiently high price by the time that the oil is out the ground? It is absolutely not a reason to prevent its development.
If that is his position Starmer is being an arse. Again.
I've no idea what Starmer's position is on this project, but supply and demand obviously determine the speed of transition, so there's a strong case for rejecting new fossil fuel extraction since it will delay the process. Conservative Surrey has recently rejected a project partly for that reason, and Johnson's comments on the closure of coal mines being helpful for the climate were generally agreed here to be unfortunately delivered but not wrong.
But oil doesn’t just produce fossil fuels, it is used to produce a variety of other products. Plastics we use in everyday life and still will need. Opposing this is crazy. Until there are viable alternatives that are fully scalable to plastics we will need to produce them.
I believe also world crop yields will plummet like a paralysed falcon, without oil based fertilisers.
Until we are able to transition away from plastics we are still going to need oil even if it is not for ‘fossil fuels’
Will no one ever think of the balance of payments in their virtue gesturing? Not developing this source does nothing to reduce our energy consumption, it simply means we import it instead. This is gesture politics at its most pathetic, damaging and bloody stupid.
If its viable we develop it. Simples.
Starmer seemed pretty fast out of the blocks to oppose it. No wonder labour are doing so poorly. Still pandering to Exctinction rebellion and their ilk seems to matter more.
Demand for petrol and diesel will fall considerably in the next few years as battery powered or hydrogen powered cars are phased in.
Yes it will and I am all for the government taking policy steps to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels (even if the same money could have a much bigger global impact spent elsewhere). But that is a commercial decision for those who want to exploit it: will there still be a sufficient demand and a sufficiently high price by the time that the oil is out the ground? It is absolutely not a reason to prevent its development.
If that is his position Starmer is being an arse. Again.
I've no idea what Starmer's position is on this project, but supply and demand obviously determine the speed of transition, so there's a strong case for rejecting new fossil fuel extraction since it will delay the process. Conservative Surrey has recently rejected a project partly for that reason, and Johnson's comments on the closure of coal mines being helpful for the climate were generally agreed here to be unfortunately delivered but not wrong.
So what does leafy, wealthy, Surrey do when they cannot get replacement white goods because the plastics that go into making them are no longer readily available for items not deemed necessities.
Off topic, but last night one of the ScotNit bores was excitedly noting that Sweden easily outperformed 'team Boris' at the Olympics per capita.
I was reading on a device I couldn't respond on, but did think it was a stupid argument given they can field a full teasm rather than in proportion to population.
Now I've looked at the final medal table it's even more daft as we've crushed Sweden per capita.
Until we are able to transition away from plastics we are still going to need oil even if it is not for ‘fossil fuels’
Will no one ever think of the balance of payments in their virtue gesturing? Not developing this source does nothing to reduce our energy consumption, it simply means we import it instead. This is gesture politics at its most pathetic, damaging and bloody stupid.
If its viable we develop it. Simples.
Starmer seemed pretty fast out of the blocks to oppose it. No wonder labour are doing so poorly. Still pandering to Exctinction rebellion and their ilk seems to matter more.
Demand for petrol and diesel will fall considerably in the next few years as battery powered or hydrogen powered cars are phased in.
Yes it will and I am all for the government taking policy steps to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels (even if the same money could have a much bigger global impact spent elsewhere). But that is a commercial decision for those who want to exploit it: will there still be a sufficient demand and a sufficiently high price by the time that the oil is out the ground? It is absolutely not a reason to prevent its development.
If that is his position Starmer is being an arse. Again.
I've no idea what Starmer's position is on this project, but supply and demand obviously determine the speed of transition, so there's a strong case for rejecting new fossil fuel extraction since it will delay the process. Conservative Surrey has recently rejected a project partly for that reason, and Johnson's comments on the closure of coal mines being helpful for the climate were generally agreed here to be unfortunately delivered but not wrong.
But oil doesn’t just produce fossil fuels, it is used to produce a variety of other products. Plastics we use in everyday life and still will need. Opposing this is crazy. Until there are viable alternatives that are fully scalable to plastics we will need to produce them.
I believe also world crop yields will plummet like a paralysed falcon, without oil based fertilisers.
Thanks for your insight. That’s interesting, and again shows the need for oil until a fully scalable alternative is in place.
Games at my school was almost always football, and almost always tedious. I got to play tennis, once, during a rare free day (and liked it, messing about with a friend), and hockey, once, and liked it a lot.
Almost the entire rest of the time it was being subjected to the boredom of football.
There was a brief hockey boom in Canterbury after GB won gold in Seoul so my school subjected us to it from January to Easter in some of the coldest weather I can remember. I recall vividly the excruciating pain of hockey ball on thigh and fingers being almost literally frozen to the stick. Hated it.
So why have indoor team sports never taken hold in the UK ?
Because our indoor playing facilities are a bit shit?
They're just a bit naff. My wife and I were watching the volleyball earlier in the Olympics. In an uncharacteristic fit of anger, she declared that if when we were first dating I had declared myself to he a keen volleyball player she would have probably called it off then and there. Go on - picture a keen volleyball player, and try to respect him. Tricky, isn't it? Even with individual sports, we respect the outdoor competitors over the indoor competitors. That's not to say these sports aren't fun, or don't require talent. I very much enjoy badminton, table tennis, pickleball, etc.
Not sure that's a universal rule. It was easily the most popular sport at my school, though partly because the teams were mixed-sex. Table tennis was popular too. Almost nobody was very interested in running and gymnastics was just a pain.
But weren't you at school in Denmark?
Yes, but Cookie was offering it as a general truth that people don't admire indoor sport, and I was disagreeing with that. Might well be a national thing?
Ah, it was meant as an observation about how the British view these things culturally. Clearly on the continent things are different - hence their success in volleyball, basketball etc.
And frustratingly, Gloucestershire, who started the season so well, now will have nothing to show for it.
Surrey had a team.out yesterday and the only name that was familiar to me was Rikki Clarke who.must be 40 or so. I think the 50 over competition is going to bite the dust in favour of the baseball type competition that is utterly ghastly. Even the 4 day game is being moved about and not given the respect it deserves.
As much as I detest everything about it the Hundred does seem to have been a success.
I fear for the other counties and what this will do to the T20 game as well.
Interesting to work out which country has done WORST at these Olympics, taking into account gdp, gdp per capita, and population.
I think it might be Mexico. Vast population: 127m. Medium income with some high income areas
FOUR BRONZE MEDALS
Is wondering about that sort of thing what overdoing the chilli does for you? Personally I try to look for people's successes....... bright side and all that. Congrats to Fiji; two rugby sevens medals. Maybe the women will win gold next time.
(Edit; poor proof-reading before posting!)
It is not enough for Britnats to succeed. Others must fail.
So why have indoor team sports never taken hold in the UK ?
Because our indoor playing facilities are a bit shit?
They're just a bit naff. My wife and I were watching the volleyball earlier in the Olympics. In an uncharacteristic fit of anger, she declared that if when we were first dating I had declared myself to he a keen volleyball player she would have probably called it off then and there. Go on - picture a keen volleyball player, and try to respect him. Tricky, isn't it? Even with individual sports, we respect the outdoor competitors over the indoor competitors. That's not to say these sports aren't fun, or don't require talent. I very much enjoy badminton, table tennis, pickleball, etc.
Not sure that's a universal rule. It was easily the most popular sport at my school, though partly because the teams were mixed-sex. Table tennis was popular too. Almost nobody was very interested in running and gymnastics was just a pain.
But weren't you at school in Denmark?
Yes, but Cookie was offering it as a general truth that people don't admire indoor sport, and I was disagreeing with that. Might well be a national thing?
Ah, it was meant as an observation about how the British view these things culturally. Clearly on the continent things are different - hence their success in volleyball, basketball etc.
So what does leafy, wealthy, Surrey do when they cannot get replacement white goods because the plastics that go into making them are no longer readily available for items not deemed necessities.
They pay more for them, which stimulates the incentive for alternatives - it's free market economics 101. Conservatives traditionally are very keen on supply and demand approaches, and wealthier people are not that bothered by a fridge costing 20% more, while they don't like increasingly weird weather any more than anyone else. Labour people are normally not keen on rising costs of essentials, but the current feeling is that the climate crisis means we need to stop messing about and tackle both supply and demand sides, while helping people on low incomes in other ways.
Now Biden and the Democratic establishment have abandoned and the NY Assembly looks ready to impeach him looks like only a matter of time before Cuomo goes
Interesting to work out which country has done WORST at these Olympics, taking into account gdp, gdp per capita, and population.
I think it might be Mexico. Vast population: 127m. Medium income with some high income areas
FOUR BRONZE MEDALS
Finland pretty poor with 2 bronze, Spain not great with only 3 gold , Ukraine bad with only one gold , Pakistan (nothing) , Argentina very poor especially compared to Brazil.
Netherlands looks to have punched above their weight
As I understand it Finland invests no state money in an Olympics programme, instead the spend more on community sports.
The tories are somewhere between stages 3 and 4 on the Climate Change Denial process.
There's no climate change
There's climate change but humans aren't causing it.
There's climate change, humans are causing it but we can fix it with 𝙏𝙀𝘾𝙃𝙉𝙊𝙇𝙊𝙂𝙔
We're all fucked.
So Starmer is ready to abandon the Scottish oil industry, Sturgeon is moving towards doing so too and only Boris is ready to give the oil field the go ahead
Team GB done exceptionally well in Tokyo - first table is Gracenote's pre-Games prediction + second is actual medal table ie 8 more golds and 13 more medals than predicted
Until we are able to transition away from plastics we are still going to need oil even if it is not for ‘fossil fuels’
Will no one ever think of the balance of payments in their virtue gesturing? Not developing this source does nothing to reduce our energy consumption, it simply means we import it instead. This is gesture politics at its most pathetic, damaging and bloody stupid.
If its viable we develop it. Simples.
Starmer seemed pretty fast out of the blocks to oppose it. No wonder labour are doing so poorly. Still pandering to Exctinction rebellion and their ilk seems to matter more.
Demand for petrol and diesel will fall considerably in the next few years as battery powered or hydrogen powered cars are phased in.
Yes it will and I am all for the government taking policy steps to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels (even if the same money could have a much bigger global impact spent elsewhere). But that is a commercial decision for those who want to exploit it: will there still be a sufficient demand and a sufficiently high price by the time that the oil is out the ground? It is absolutely not a reason to prevent its development.
If that is his position Starmer is being an arse. Again.
I've no idea what Starmer's position is on this project, but supply and demand obviously determine the speed of transition, so there's a strong case for rejecting new fossil fuel extraction since it will delay the process. Conservative Surrey has recently rejected a project partly for that reason, and Johnson's comments on the closure of coal mines being helpful for the climate were generally agreed here to be unfortunately delivered but not wrong.
It's a global market Nick. Do you seriously believe that the output of the Cambo field is going to have a measurable effect on the international oil price? I mean, seriously? Would you rather we imported more fuel extracted from oil shale fields in countries with poorer environmental standards?
While I disagree with Starmer, there are two points to be made here:
1) His stance makes no difference, but it will shore up his core vote which he needs to;
2) I would point out people have been saying he needs to be more vocal in opposition, rather than just tamely agreeing with everything the government does, in order to get noticed. Well, here he’s doing it, on an issue where he will get traction. Isn’t that what you wanted?
So Starmer is ready to abandon the Scottish oil industry, Sturgeon is moving towards doing so too and only Boris is ready to give the oil field the go ahead
Politics aside, achieving the same medal total as we did in London, after one of the nastier plagues in the world, in the heat and foreign-ness of Tokyo, is really quite something. Arguably better than Rio
I don't often agree with Leon, but last night I watched the 7:30pm episode of the BBC olympics with Kathy Grainger as guest. I remember her in 2012 being distraught at only winning a silver in her double sculls, only Gold is worth it she said then, and she duely achieved it in 2016. That was the attitude which won the day. Not just in rowing, but cycling as well. The first 20mins of the show was about Helen Glover and partner missing out on a bronze. I swear it was the worst rubbish I ever heard, excuses, weepy backstory and the rest. I really think the BBC has turned into a version of X Factor! Absolute rubbish, and worst of all, Grainger was part of this rubbish. We have turned into a country of British Plucky losers again.
I think that's overdramatizing the situation. They made a particular fuss of Helen Glover because she came back after having kiddies, gave it a good go, and nearly came away with something. More generally, the reviews of the performance of the rowing squad have not been gushing, and questions have been asked.
Meanwhile, elsewhere, the contingents from some other disciplines are doing quite well. It's not exactly an unremitting tale of woe, or of vast numbers of 'if only there were a tin medal for fourth' regrets.
At the end of this Games I anticipate that the British team will be some way short of its performance in Rio, and that there will be some tutting (especially if the track cyclists also win a lot less than in recent times,) but that's not the end of the world. If things improve again in Paris then all will be well; if they don't then people will start to grumble about why we're not spending some of that lottery money on children's hospitals or something instead.
Team GB are still slightly ahead of where they were at the same stage last time:
Though, Team GB isn't going to win many in athletics....I think they only have 2-3 realistic chances in individual events, which none are gold medal favourites. Could quite easily end up with just 1 individual medal and perhaps 1 relay.
It was seven medals last time, with just two golds (thanks Mo Farah); I doubt we'll be far short of that this time.
Where are the 7 coming from? Katarina Johnson-Thompson and Dina Asher Smith are the only two I can think of. Lots of events, no Team GB even got the qualifying time.
I suspect it will be four or five. Jemma Reekie, one or two of the relay teams to add to your list. I could well be wrong - that's the beauty of live sport.
I think that is still very optimistic.
A thing to also consider in this debate. Swimming many events Team GB have finalists, sometimes 2 in the final, and so many where the swimmer is ranked top 3 in the world. The rowing while disappointing, but was there were i think 5 4ths places ...
The athletics, in most events now Team GB don't even really have one competitive athelete who is top 3-4-5 in the world. And many don't even have a single competitor who could make the qualifying mark.
Difficult to win medals if you have a team where most of the competitors don't even have a shot at it.
Yes, I think we will tail off badly in this Olympics and end up with 40-45 medals. We will likely be beaten by Australia and probably 3rd or 4th in Europe behind Fake Russia and maybe Germany or Italy or both
Maybe around 9th in the overall table at the end? Not ignoble, but quite a fall from Rio and London
I have never mispredicted the outcome of a sporting or political contest in my entire puff. Let's all laugh at Leon.
On topic, it seems like a great bet but I'm not tempted for the following reasons:
1. Cuomo himself - he has already survived one scandal (on care home deaths) where everyone thought he would have to go but he didn't. He will stick to the post for dear life, part for pride, part for personal protection reasons;
2. The Republicans - though the Democrats have a Supermajority in both Houses, the Republicans can still influence matters. Put bluntly, it is far more beneficial to them to have Cuomo in place, both because it keeps the Democratic party fractured but also having Cuomo in place represents their best chance of taking the Governorship;
3. Laetitia James. Everyone knows in the establishment in NY that she wants the Governors job and she is also seen as more aligned with the AOC-wing. So this will not be seen as an unbiased report but one she has produced that favours her interests. It may also make more moderate Democrats swallow their pride and keep with Cuomo;
4. NY Politics - it's dirty, it's rough, it is what is expected. This is not Vermont. Everyone expects their politicians to be sinners not saints and (in most cases) crooked.
The tories are somewhere between stages 3 and 4 on the Climate Change Denial process.
There's no climate change
There's climate change but humans aren't causing it.
There's climate change, humans are causing it but we can fix it with 𝙏𝙀𝘾𝙃𝙉𝙊𝙇𝙊𝙂𝙔
We're all fucked.
If 4 is true then there's no point in trying to fix anything.
And XR among others also go on about fixing things with new technology, though they are less optimistic about it. So I suspect you are talking bollocks.
Interesting to work out which country has done WORST at these Olympics, taking into account gdp, gdp per capita, and population.
I think it might be Mexico. Vast population: 127m. Medium income with some high income areas
FOUR BRONZE MEDALS
Is wondering about that sort of thing what overdoing the chilli does for you? Personally I try to look for people's successes....... bright side and all that. Congrats to Fiji; two rugby sevens medals. Maybe the women will win gold next time.
(Edit; poor proof-reading before posting!)
It is not enough for Britnats to succeed. Others must fail.
You know what, you can have pride in what the Team has done without automatically become a "BritNat". Grow up.
I am in California at the moment, and was talking to a well-connected friend in Sacramento about the likelihood of a recall of the Governor, Newsom. I have to say this wasn't on my radar at all, but it certainly sounds like there could be a fascinating race to succeed him. Apparently there are likely to be dozens of candidates, so the next Governor may well win with 15% of the vote. California is a heavily Democratic state, but even the Republicans there might be able to manage that, if they can unite around one charismatic figure a la Arnie.
Just for clarity, California is around 60/40 Democrat/GOP. Democratic dominance is partly down to disorganisation on the part of the Republicans and the Democrats changing the electoral rules to entrench partisan advantage
It's even a little more than that - registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 46% to 24% - almost 2:1. It's actually even worse for the Republicans than that because independents lean Democrat, and because ideological divides are stark, meaning the number of votes up for grabs is relatively small.
Which shows the value of a star, charismatic candidate, like Arnie, or Reagan or our own dear Boris.
Errr, of the 7 previous elections to Regan the Dems won California only once - in the LBJ sweep.
They voted for Ford over Carter.
From the 1940s to the 1980s it was of course a very wealthy state heavily based on a massive defence industry. I once heard a stat that in the 1980s defence spending and research would have made California the world’s sixth largest economy if it were an independent state (albeit of course then it wouldn’t have had the big defence contracts). So it’s not surprising it was leaning Republican. Equally, not surprising given the wealth and high levels of education - which used to cause voters to trend Republican - now means it is heavily Democratic.
California used to be split in two politically.
Northern California was Democratic, San Francisco and the Bay area even voted for McGovern in 1972 when Nixon trounced him nationally. Southern California however was strong Republican and was key to Nixon and Reagan's taking the state overall.
Now like much of the rest of the US urban California is strong Democrat and suburban California leans Democrat and rural California is strong Republican still but the urban part outvotes the rural part given the size of LA, San Diego, San Jose and San Francisco
The tories are somewhere between stages 3 and 4 on the Climate Change Denial process.
There's no climate change
There's climate change but humans aren't causing it.
There's climate change, humans are causing it but we can fix it with 𝙏𝙀𝘾𝙃𝙉𝙊𝙇𝙊𝙂𝙔
We're all fucked.
So Starmer is ready to abandon the Scottish oil industry, Sturgeon is moving towards doing so too and only Boris is ready to give the oil field the go ahead
There’s still a Scottish oil industry? I’d got the impression from you lads that it was down to a trickle with decommissioning costs a million ton albatross around an Indy Scotland’s neck.
So what does leafy, wealthy, Surrey do when they cannot get replacement white goods because the plastics that go into making them are no longer readily available for items not deemed necessities.
They pay more for them, which stimulates the incentive for alternatives - it's free market economics 101. Conservatives traditionally are very keen on supply and demand approaches, and wealthier people are not that bothered by a fridge costing 20% more, while they don't like increasingly weird weather any more than anyone else. Labour people are normally not keen on rising costs of essentials, but the current feeling is that the climate crisis means we need to stop messing about and tackle both supply and demand sides, while helping people on low incomes in other ways.
Extracting this oil will not make a jot of difference and people need to stop seeing oil as just a fossil fuel. It is far more than that.
The demand for petrol will continue to fall as we transition to renewables for motor travel and there simply isn’t a scalable option to replace plastics currently,
Effectively if you choke off supply or constrict supply while demand is rising then you won’t just be paying more for a fridge you will be curtailing whole sectors of industry simply deemed non essential. It happens a lot with force majeures but the effect is usually temporary.
You can expect the market to resolve an issue as long as it has the technology available To deliver it and the money to invest in it.
Team GB done exceptionally well in Tokyo - first table is Gracenote's pre-Games prediction + second is actual medal table ie 8 more golds and 13 more medals than predicted
Credit too to John Major who by using Lottery money to fund elite athletes ensured we never repeated the humiliation of Atlanta 1996. Then we were 36th in the medal table, at the end of the Tokyo Olympics we are 4th.
Politics aside, achieving the same medal total as we did in London, after one of the nastier plagues in the world, in the heat and foreign-ness of Tokyo, is really quite something. Arguably better than Rio
I don't often agree with Leon, but last night I watched the 7:30pm episode of the BBC olympics with Kathy Grainger as guest. I remember her in 2012 being distraught at only winning a silver in her double sculls, only Gold is worth it she said then, and she duely achieved it in 2016. That was the attitude which won the day. Not just in rowing, but cycling as well. The first 20mins of the show was about Helen Glover and partner missing out on a bronze. I swear it was the worst rubbish I ever heard, excuses, weepy backstory and the rest. I really think the BBC has turned into a version of X Factor! Absolute rubbish, and worst of all, Grainger was part of this rubbish. We have turned into a country of British Plucky losers again.
I think that's overdramatizing the situation. They made a particular fuss of Helen Glover because she came back after having kiddies, gave it a good go, and nearly came away with something. More generally, the reviews of the performance of the rowing squad have not been gushing, and questions have been asked.
Meanwhile, elsewhere, the contingents from some other disciplines are doing quite well. It's not exactly an unremitting tale of woe, or of vast numbers of 'if only there were a tin medal for fourth' regrets.
At the end of this Games I anticipate that the British team will be some way short of its performance in Rio, and that there will be some tutting (especially if the track cyclists also win a lot less than in recent times,) but that's not the end of the world. If things improve again in Paris then all will be well; if they don't then people will start to grumble about why we're not spending some of that lottery money on children's hospitals or something instead.
Team GB are still slightly ahead of where they were at the same stage last time:
Though, Team GB isn't going to win many in athletics....I think they only have 2-3 realistic chances in individual events, which none are gold medal favourites. Could quite easily end up with just 1 individual medal and perhaps 1 relay.
It was seven medals last time, with just two golds (thanks Mo Farah); I doubt we'll be far short of that this time.
Where are the 7 coming from? Katarina Johnson-Thompson and Dina Asher Smith are the only two I can think of. Lots of events, no Team GB even got the qualifying time.
I suspect it will be four or five. Jemma Reekie, one or two of the relay teams to add to your list. I could well be wrong - that's the beauty of live sport.
I think that is still very optimistic.
A thing to also consider in this debate. Swimming many events Team GB have finalists, sometimes 2 in the final, and so many where the swimmer is ranked top 3 in the world. The rowing while disappointing, but was there were i think 5 4ths places ...
The athletics, in most events now Team GB don't even really have one competitive athelete who is top 3-4-5 in the world. And many don't even have a single competitor who could make the qualifying mark.
Difficult to win medals if you have a team where most of the competitors don't even have a shot at it.
Yes, I think we will tail off badly in this Olympics and end up with 40-45 medals. We will likely be beaten by Australia and probably 3rd or 4th in Europe behind Fake Russia and maybe Germany or Italy or both
Maybe around 9th in the overall table at the end? Not ignoble, but quite a fall from Rio and London
I have never mispredicted the outcome of a sporting or political contest in my entire puff. Let's all laugh at Leon.
Lol A week ago someone (I can't remember who) was predicting we were going to do badly because the Wokists have taken over UK Sport.
Now that's we've put in another great performance we get: "Is there NOTHING Brexit Britain can't do?".
So Starmer is ready to abandon the Scottish oil industry, Sturgeon is moving towards doing so too and only Boris is ready to give the oil field the go ahead
Alok wossname clearly positioning himself for his moment in the sun. You can back him for a tenner at 100 for next tory leader on bf, or lay him at 1000.
So what does leafy, wealthy, Surrey do when they cannot get replacement white goods because the plastics that go into making them are no longer readily available for items not deemed necessities.
They pay more for them, which stimulates the incentive for alternatives - it's free market economics 101. Conservatives traditionally are very keen on supply and demand approaches, and wealthier people are not that bothered by a fridge costing 20% more, while they don't like increasingly weird weather any more than anyone else. Labour people are normally not keen on rising costs of essentials, but the current feeling is that the climate crisis means we need to stop messing about and tackle both supply and demand sides, while helping people on low incomes in other ways.
Extracting this oil will not make a jot of difference and people need to stop seeing oil as just a fossil fuel. It is far more than that.
The demand for petrol will continue to fall as we transition to renewables for motor travel and there simply isn’t a scalable option to replace plastics currently,
Effectively if you choke off supply or constrict supply while demand is rising then you won’t just be paying more for a fridge you will be curtailing whole sectors of industry simply deemed non essential. It happens a lot with force majeures but the effect is usually temporary.
You can expect the market to resolve an issue as long as it has the technology available To deliver it and the money to invest in it.
I would be interested to know what type of oil is there, because that also has a bearing on the rights and wrongs of it. Unfortunately I think @Richard_Tyndall is away at the moment.
Now Biden and the Democratic establishment have abandoned and the NY Assembly looks ready to impeach him looks like only a matter of time before Cuomo goes
In a way I'd actually not want him to resign, so they are forced to make him go - so often such people get to avoid making a decision and can just mouth platitudes. Things like Trump's Senate trial revealed the ridiculousness of some positions.
The tories are somewhere between stages 3 and 4 on the Climate Change Denial process.
There's no climate change
There's climate change but humans aren't causing it.
There's climate change, humans are causing it but we can fix it with 𝙏𝙀𝘾𝙃𝙉𝙊𝙇𝙊𝙂𝙔
We're all fucked.
If 4 is true then there's no point in trying to fix anything.
And XR among others also go on about fixing things with new technology, though they are less optimistic about it. So I suspect you are talking bollocks.
People always talk about ‘new technology’ but never say what it is.
New technology needs developing. Validating. Proving out and scaling.
Absolutely we need to transition from fossil fuels and are doing so. My only scepticism is around replacing gas boilers with ground and air source heat pumps. They are crap and expensive. Hydrogen boilers will be the way to go once developed.
Interesting to work out which country has done WORST at these Olympics, taking into account gdp, gdp per capita, and population.
I think it might be Mexico. Vast population: 127m. Medium income with some high income areas
FOUR BRONZE MEDALS
Is wondering about that sort of thing what overdoing the chilli does for you? Personally I try to look for people's successes....... bright side and all that. Congrats to Fiji; two rugby sevens medals. Maybe the women will win gold next time.
(Edit; poor proof-reading before posting!)
It is not enough for Britnats to succeed. Others must fail.
You know what, you can have pride in what the Team has done without automatically become a "BritNat". Grow up.
Catch you just before your regular pulpit gig did I?
Team GB done exceptionally well in Tokyo - first table is Gracenote's pre-Games prediction + second is actual medal table ie 8 more golds and 13 more medals than predicted
Interesting that that one has the Netherlands slightly underperform, while iirc the 538 has them greatly over perform.
I think they were expected to sweep the board in the velodrome based on their recent world championship form. However, anyone who actually follows the sport knows that Team GB saves a lot of performance for the Olympic cycle rather than show their hand with new equipment and WR times in earlier events.
Politics aside, achieving the same medal total as we did in London, after one of the nastier plagues in the world, in the heat and foreign-ness of Tokyo, is really quite something. Arguably better than Rio
I don't often agree with Leon, but last night I watched the 7:30pm episode of the BBC olympics with Kathy Grainger as guest. I remember her in 2012 being distraught at only winning a silver in her double sculls, only Gold is worth it she said then, and she duely achieved it in 2016. That was the attitude which won the day. Not just in rowing, but cycling as well. The first 20mins of the show was about Helen Glover and partner missing out on a bronze. I swear it was the worst rubbish I ever heard, excuses, weepy backstory and the rest. I really think the BBC has turned into a version of X Factor! Absolute rubbish, and worst of all, Grainger was part of this rubbish. We have turned into a country of British Plucky losers again.
I think that's overdramatizing the situation. They made a particular fuss of Helen Glover because she came back after having kiddies, gave it a good go, and nearly came away with something. More generally, the reviews of the performance of the rowing squad have not been gushing, and questions have been asked.
Meanwhile, elsewhere, the contingents from some other disciplines are doing quite well. It's not exactly an unremitting tale of woe, or of vast numbers of 'if only there were a tin medal for fourth' regrets.
At the end of this Games I anticipate that the British team will be some way short of its performance in Rio, and that there will be some tutting (especially if the track cyclists also win a lot less than in recent times,) but that's not the end of the world. If things improve again in Paris then all will be well; if they don't then people will start to grumble about why we're not spending some of that lottery money on children's hospitals or something instead.
Team GB are still slightly ahead of where they were at the same stage last time:
Though, Team GB isn't going to win many in athletics....I think they only have 2-3 realistic chances in individual events, which none are gold medal favourites. Could quite easily end up with just 1 individual medal and perhaps 1 relay.
It was seven medals last time, with just two golds (thanks Mo Farah); I doubt we'll be far short of that this time.
Where are the 7 coming from? Katarina Johnson-Thompson and Dina Asher Smith are the only two I can think of. Lots of events, no Team GB even got the qualifying time.
I suspect it will be four or five. Jemma Reekie, one or two of the relay teams to add to your list. I could well be wrong - that's the beauty of live sport.
I think that is still very optimistic.
A thing to also consider in this debate. Swimming many events Team GB have finalists, sometimes 2 in the final, and so many where the swimmer is ranked top 3 in the world. The rowing while disappointing, but was there were i think 5 4ths places ...
The athletics, in most events now Team GB don't even really have one competitive athelete who is top 3-4-5 in the world. And many don't even have a single competitor who could make the qualifying mark.
Difficult to win medals if you have a team where most of the competitors don't even have a shot at it.
Yes, I think we will tail off badly in this Olympics and end up with 40-45 medals. We will likely be beaten by Australia and probably 3rd or 4th in Europe behind Fake Russia and maybe Germany or Italy or both
Maybe around 9th in the overall table at the end? Not ignoble, but quite a fall from Rio and London
To be fair to @Leon , @Benpointer , his two statements are not necessarily contradictory. You could have feared for Team GB's performance and then been delighted when they surpassed expectations.
Also, just to put out, 65 is a great total when we lost several of our Gold medal hopes (KJT, shooting, arguably the team show jumping) and several other medal hopes (eg Dinah Ashe-Smith) to injury plus had others hit by bad luck (Laura Kenny in the Omnium, Zhandel Hughes). While all teams have their injuries etc, I don't think any team was impacted so much by injuries and bad luck when it came to medal prospects.
Credit too to John Major who by using Lottery money to fund elite athletes ensured we never repeated the humiliation of Atlanta 1996. Then we were 36th in the medal table, at the end of the Tokyo Olympics we are 4th.
I don't agree with you on much @HYUFD but John Major deserves a lot of credt for that dramatic change. The BBC Gold Rush series on that transformation was excellent.
So Starmer is ready to abandon the Scottish oil industry, Sturgeon is moving towards doing so too and only Boris is ready to give the oil field the go ahead
Interesting to work out which country has done WORST at these Olympics, taking into account gdp, gdp per capita, and population.
I think it might be Mexico. Vast population: 127m. Medium income with some high income areas
FOUR BRONZE MEDALS
Is wondering about that sort of thing what overdoing the chilli does for you? Personally I try to look for people's successes....... bright side and all that. Congrats to Fiji; two rugby sevens medals. Maybe the women will win gold next time.
(Edit; poor proof-reading before posting!)
It is not enough for BritScotnats to succeed. Others must fail.
The problem is, that still works.
No question now, as to what was melting and changing. They looked from pig to man, and man to pig, and pig to man again: but already it was impossible to tell which was which.
Interesting to work out which country has done WORST at these Olympics, taking into account gdp, gdp per capita, and population.
I think it might be Mexico. Vast population: 127m. Medium income with some high income areas
FOUR BRONZE MEDALS
Is wondering about that sort of thing what overdoing the chilli does for you? Personally I try to look for people's successes....... bright side and all that. Congrats to Fiji; two rugby sevens medals. Maybe the women will win gold next time.
(Edit; poor proof-reading before posting!)
It is not enough for Britnats to succeed. Others must fail.
You know what, you can have pride in what the Team has done without automatically become a "BritNat". Grow up.
Catch you just before your regular pulpit gig did I?
That's right, I'm off to the usual gig at the Kirk to give my fire and brimstone sermon.
So Starmer is ready to abandon the Scottish oil industry, Sturgeon is moving towards doing so too and only Boris is ready to give the oil field the go ahead
The tories are somewhere between stages 3 and 4 on the Climate Change Denial process.
There's no climate change
There's climate change but humans aren't causing it.
There's climate change, humans are causing it but we can fix it with 𝙏𝙀𝘾𝙃𝙉𝙊𝙇𝙊𝙂𝙔
We're all fucked.
If 4 is true then there's no point in trying to fix anything.
And XR among others also go on about fixing things with new technology, though they are less optimistic about it. So I suspect you are talking bollocks.
@Dura_Ace is surely just saying where he thinks the Tories are on this. And I think he's right.
So Starmer is ready to abandon the Scottish oil industry, Sturgeon is moving towards doing so too and only Boris is ready to give the oil field the go ahead
Vote Blue, Go Green may be laudable but as Cameron discovered in 2010 it doesn't deliver a Tory majority.
The RedWall and indeed much of Scotland like Aberdeen and Shetland is much keener on coal and oil, so a balance has to be struck
Shame he just slagged off coal mines then, isn't it?
True, but as Nick Palmer said his friends and associates in Surrey wholeheartedly agreed the sentiment if not the wording and I suspect the same is true of many people who have reacted indignantly to the comment for theatre.
The tories are somewhere between stages 3 and 4 on the Climate Change Denial process.
There's no climate change
There's climate change but humans aren't causing it.
There's climate change, humans are causing it but we can fix it with 𝙏𝙀𝘾𝙃𝙉𝙊𝙇𝙊𝙂𝙔
We're all fucked.
If 4 is true then there's no point in trying to fix anything.
And XR among others also go on about fixing things with new technology, though they are less optimistic about it. So I suspect you are talking bollocks.
People always talk about ‘new technology’ but never say what it is.
New technology needs developing. Validating. Proving out and scaling.
Absolutely we need to transition from fossil fuels and are doing so. My only scepticism is around replacing gas boilers with ground and air source heat pumps. They are crap and expensive. Hydrogen boilers will be the way to go once developed.
Agreed people can put too much hope on vague technological development as a saving grace. It's not always a realistic option.
Doesn't make the teenage style suggestion less bollocks though, since people who are very much not climate change deniers talk up the need.
So Starmer is ready to abandon the Scottish oil industry, Sturgeon is moving towards doing so too and only Boris is ready to give the oil field the go ahead
The tories are somewhere between stages 3 and 4 on the Climate Change Denial process.
There's no climate change
There's climate change but humans aren't causing it.
There's climate change, humans are causing it but we can fix it with 𝙏𝙀𝘾𝙃𝙉𝙊𝙇𝙊𝙂𝙔
We're all fucked.
So Starmer is ready to abandon the Scottish oil industry, Sturgeon is moving towards doing so too and only Boris is ready to give the oil field the go ahead
Its not just the Scottish oil industry. Grangemouth is going to run out of feedstock for its production unless new sources are developed. We have a significant number of jobs downstream from the oil production itself and they are at risk.
I feel for the Japanese. They've run a very well-organised Olympics, performed well as a nation, but Covid has stopped their citizen being able to attend a home Olympics.
The few events at London 2012 we were lucky enough to attend will always be a treasured memory. The Japanese people have missed out on that.
The IOC should offer Tokyo the chance to have the next unbooked summer Olympics (2036) as a reward, using the same facilities.
Interesting to work out which country has done WORST at these Olympics, taking into account gdp, gdp per capita, and population.
I think it might be Mexico. Vast population: 127m. Medium income with some high income areas
FOUR BRONZE MEDALS
Is wondering about that sort of thing what overdoing the chilli does for you? Personally I try to look for people's successes....... bright side and all that. Congrats to Fiji; two rugby sevens medals. Maybe the women will win gold next time.
(Edit; poor proof-reading before posting!)
It is not enough for Britnats to succeed. Others must fail.
You know what, you can have pride in what the Team has done without automatically become a "BritNat". Grow up.
Catch you just before your regular pulpit gig did I?
That's right, I'm off to the usual gig at the Kirk to give my fire and brimstone sermon.
If it’s a weefree kirk, I’m sure they’ll enjoy one of your many paens to the pussy grabbing son of Lewis.
The tories are somewhere between stages 3 and 4 on the Climate Change Denial process.
There's no climate change
There's climate change but humans aren't causing it.
There's climate change, humans are causing it but we can fix it with 𝙏𝙀𝘾𝙃𝙉𝙊𝙇𝙊𝙂𝙔
We're all fucked.
So Starmer is ready to abandon the Scottish oil industry, Sturgeon is moving towards doing so too and only Boris is ready to give the oil field the go ahead
Its not just the Scottish oil industry. Grangemouth is going to run out of feedstock for its production unless new sources are developed. We have a significant number of jobs downstream from the oil production itself and they are at risk.
Isabel Hardman: Johnson is lucky to have Starmer, who was supposed to give a “big vision” speech at the start of this year but who has ended up generally agreeing with the government but in a special, disappointed voice. They delight in the differences in their personalities, but both men are more similar than they’d admit. They’ve had an extraordinary two years in the job, tackling some of the biggest issues any leader could imagine. But both seem to have run out of puff, suggesting in the things they say that the challenges this country faces are quite small and easily solved.
Just following on from a topic raised last night, I don't often disagree with @FrancisUrquhart and @MaxPB but I'd question the view that taking money from the high-medal scoring sports and putting it in other areas is necessarily a bad thing. for several reasons:
1. The obvious point - money does not always guarantee success (rowing);
2. The heavily invested sports may be benefiting from a "slingshot" effect where enough success has been generated to keep them going at a strong level. The (poor) analogy I would use is building a factory: high capex at the start but, once done, spend becomes about maintenance, repairs and upgrades. There is no need for huge investments;
3. Looking ahead. It is a long process from investment to training to medal winners. I suspect Team GB is looking ahead. Yes, the likes of rowing produce many medals now but what about in 2-3 Olympics' time? I suspect BMX, for example, will have more medal categories added, as will some of the other events. The Games evolve;
4. Public interest. Again, you need to somewhat keep people aligned with what you do if you are asking them for lottery money. Some of the events may seem "esoteric" but they might be very popular with underprivileged areas of society, where there could be medal hopes.
Comments
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/royal-london-cup-covid-outbreak-causes-cancellation-of-gloucestershire-visit-to-middlesex-1272577
And frustratingly, Gloucestershire, who started the season so well, now will have nothing to show for it.
If its viable we develop it. Simples.
That mine in Cumbria....
I was reading on a device I couldn't respond on, but did think it was a stupid argument given they can field a full teasm rather than in proportion to population.
Now I've looked at the final medal table it's even more daft as we've crushed Sweden per capita.
I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Demand for petrol and diesel will fall considerably in the next few years as battery powered or hydrogen powered cars are phased in.
My wife and I were watching the volleyball earlier in the Olympics. In an uncharacteristic fit of anger, she declared that if when we were first dating I had declared myself to he a keen volleyball player she would have probably called it off then and there.
Go on - picture a keen volleyball player, and try to respect him. Tricky, isn't it?
Even with individual sports, we respect the outdoor competitors over the indoor competitors.
That's not to say these sports aren't fun, or don't require talent. I very much enjoy badminton, table tennis, pickleball, etc.
If that is his position Starmer is being an arse. Again.
We are still suffering from global shortages and force majeures of some polymers after the problems they had in Texas earlier in the year.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2021/08/07/grassroots-sports-won-olympics/
I'm always slightly grumpy about using 'we' to describe British success - as if I, personally, can take any credit (just as I I always gently mock my in-laws for using 'we' to describe Tottenham Hotspur as if they were playing) but for the rowers etc I suppose 'we' makes some sense if we've ever bought a lottery ticket. But for these self-funded athletes this taking-the-credit-vicariously seems genuinely misplaced.
One of my former employers are developing hydrogen boilers for domestic use. That’s got to be better than ground or air source heat pumps.
Starmer is hopeless, labour would have probably been better off with Nandy. I expect he has opposed it to be seen to be doing the ‘right thing’. It’s political policy at the behest of the guardian comment is free section.
Jason Kenny most successful GB Olympian ever: with 7 golds and 9 medals.
Laura Kenny first women to win gold in three games.
Laura K and Charlotte Dujardin first GB women with 6 medals.
Duncan Scott - first Brit to win 4 in one games.
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1424281165528240130?s=20
Games at my school was almost always football, and almost always tedious. I got to play tennis, once, during a rare free day (and liked it, messing about with a friend), and hockey, once, and liked it a lot.
Almost the entire rest of the time it was being subjected to the boredom of football.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-58103843
He's just wrong.
Edit, his position is reported here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-58103843
I made those exact points earlier this week and that Sturgeon is hiding in the closet 'frit' to comment, while Starmer happily trashes 1,000 plus Scots jobs
But oil doesn’t just produce fossil fuels, it is used to produce a variety of other products. Plastics we use in everyday life and still will need. Opposing this is crazy. Until there are viable alternatives that are fully scalable to plastics we will need to produce them.
So what does leafy, wealthy, Surrey do when they cannot get replacement white goods because the plastics that go into making them are no longer readily available for items not deemed necessities.
"Breakdancing will make its debut at the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_sports
I fear for the other counties and what this will do to the T20 game as well.
Tory donor paid £100,000 for breakfast with Boris Johnson in "cash for access" scheme
Mohamed Amersi is also owed a magic show by Penny Mordaunt (£15k)
Now he's in spat with party, which won't say if they'll deliver or return the £ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dbe5051a-f78f-11eb-a52c-53a486091545?shareToken=bdded28636226e686efc56e044211996
Tory peer Lord Prior had secret ties to disgraced firm
Email show he urged NHS leaders to adopt its payday scheme https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b95c6572-f79b-11eb-a52c-53a486091545?shareToken=14e4238752a54311647c5c3df1010569 https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1424276566889074689/photo/1
That's what keeps me going...
James Gray currently sits on three committees himself
Labour tonight demands Parliament’s sleaze watchdog investigate https://twitter.com/AVMikhailova/status/1424121063148072972/photo/
1
James Gray repeatedly refused to answer questions on who the clients he trained are, or for which committee hearings
He also refused to say whether he approached MPs on the committees his clients were appearing in front of as part of the paid work
https://twitter.com/AVMikhailova/status/1424123785469382657
https://twitter.com/martynziegler/status/1424286224794234883?s=20
1) His stance makes no difference, but it will shore up his core vote which he needs to;
2) I would point out people have been saying he needs to be more vocal in opposition, rather than just tamely agreeing with everything the government does, in order to get noticed. Well, here he’s doing it, on an issue where he will get traction. Isn’t that what you wanted?
Boris can't decide if he wants to be the new Greta Thurnberg or the new Jeremy Clarkson. COP 26 is shaping up to be a fiasco for the Government > Mail On Sunday > https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9872289/DAN-HODGES-Boris-decide-hes-Jeremy-Clarkson-Greta-Thunberg.html
1. Cuomo himself - he has already survived one scandal (on care home deaths) where everyone thought he would have to go but he didn't. He will stick to the post for dear life, part for pride, part for personal protection reasons;
2. The Republicans - though the Democrats have a Supermajority in both Houses, the Republicans can still influence matters. Put bluntly, it is far more beneficial to them to have Cuomo in place, both because it keeps the Democratic party fractured but also having Cuomo in place represents their best chance of taking the Governorship;
3. Laetitia James. Everyone knows in the establishment in NY that she wants the Governors job and she is also seen as more aligned with the AOC-wing. So this will not be seen as an unbiased report but one she has produced that favours her interests. It may also make more moderate Democrats swallow their pride and keep with Cuomo;
4. NY Politics - it's dirty, it's rough, it is what is expected. This is not Vermont. Everyone expects their politicians to be sinners not saints and (in most cases) crooked.
And XR among others also go on about fixing things with new technology, though they are less optimistic about it. So I suspect you are talking bollocks.
Northern California was Democratic, San Francisco and the Bay area even voted for McGovern in 1972 when Nixon trounced him nationally. Southern California however was strong Republican and was key to Nixon and Reagan's taking the state overall.
Now like much of the rest of the US urban California is strong Democrat and suburban California leans Democrat and rural California is strong Republican still but the urban part outvotes the rural part given the size of LA, San Diego, San Jose and San Francisco
The demand for petrol will continue to fall as we transition to renewables for motor travel and there simply isn’t a scalable option to replace plastics currently,
Effectively if you choke off supply or constrict supply while demand is rising then you won’t just be paying more for a fridge you will be curtailing whole sectors of industry simply deemed non essential. It happens a lot with force majeures but the effect is usually temporary.
You can expect the market to resolve an issue as long as it has the technology available
To deliver it and the money to invest in it.
https://twitter.com/OliverDowden/status/1424290297912102912?s=20
Credit too to John Major who by using Lottery money to fund elite athletes ensured we never repeated the humiliation of Atlanta 1996. Then we were 36th in the medal table, at the end of the Tokyo Olympics we are 4th.
Now that's we've put in another great performance we get: "Is there NOTHING Brexit Britain can't do?".
New technology needs developing. Validating. Proving out and scaling.
Absolutely we need to transition from fossil fuels and are doing so. My only scepticism is around replacing gas boilers with ground and air source heat pumps. They are crap and expensive. Hydrogen boilers will be the way to go once developed.
Also, just to put out, 65 is a great total when we lost several of our Gold medal hopes (KJT, shooting, arguably the team show jumping) and several other medal hopes (eg Dinah Ashe-Smith) to injury plus had others hit by bad luck (Laura Kenny in the Omnium, Zhandel Hughes). While all teams have their injuries etc, I don't think any team was impacted so much by injuries and bad luck when it came to medal prospects.
The RedWall and indeed much of Scotland like Aberdeen and Shetland is much keener on coal and oil, so a balance has to be struck
No question now, as to what was melting and changing. They looked from pig to man, and man to pig, and pig to man again: but already it was impossible to tell which was which.
Doesn't make the teenage style suggestion less bollocks though, since people who are very much not climate change deniers talk up the need.
The few events at London 2012 we were lucky enough to attend will always be a treasured memory. The Japanese people have missed out on that.
The IOC should offer Tokyo the chance to have the next unbooked summer Olympics (2036) as a reward, using the same facilities.
1. The obvious point - money does not always guarantee success (rowing);
2. The heavily invested sports may be benefiting from a "slingshot" effect where enough success has been generated to keep them going at a strong level. The (poor) analogy I would use is building a factory: high capex at the start but, once done, spend becomes about maintenance, repairs and upgrades. There is no need for huge investments;
3. Looking ahead. It is a long process from investment to training to medal winners. I suspect Team GB is looking ahead. Yes, the likes of rowing produce many medals now but what about in 2-3 Olympics' time? I suspect BMX, for example, will have more medal categories added, as will some of the other events. The Games evolve;
4. Public interest. Again, you need to somewhat keep people aligned with what you do if you are asking them for lottery money. Some of the events may seem "esoteric" but they might be very popular with underprivileged areas of society, where there could be medal hopes.