Starmer's having his IDS quiet man moment, isn't he? Can't see a return from this, except of course Labour never ruthlessly dump their leaders mid-term unlike the Tories and Lib Dems.
If he is the IDS, who would be the Howard figure to shore up the vote? A second coming of Ed Miliband?
IDS' final poll as Tory leader had the Tories on 33% with ICM in October 2003, the Tories got 33.2% under Michael Howard in general election 2005.
So effectively removing him made absolutely zero difference to the Tory voteshare and I doubt removing Starmer would be much different.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I'm not pretending that for a moment.
So, in what way is the world of 2021 worse than the world of 2001 or 1921?
Versus 1921 you can only be thinking of humans - you can't seriously be thinking of other species, including amphibians, insects, plants etc. Your view is entirely human-centric. I'm not getting at you, 99% of humans agree with you not me. I'm painfully aware of that. But all of the other life on earth (except some domesticated animals which are quasi-human anyway) would agree with me if they had a voice.
What would an extraterrestrial being report back to its masters if it had secretly been observing planet Earth for thousands of years? I think it would say "Planet Earth is a beautiful and rich place, but nowhere near as beautiful and rich as it was, and nowhere near as beautiful and rich as it was before that. It seems to have been plagued by one species with extraordinary spread, scope and effect.
No, they wouldn't say that.
Humans are part of nature. That cat, they seek to maximise their wellbeing and their chance of procreating. That dog, the same.
We are just seeking to do exactly the same as all the other animals.
You seek to make us less like nature, when you ask us not to optimise for ourselves. You are the one demanding that we disregard evolution.
That alien would say, humankind is progressing just as we did. They are gaining new knowledge and new skills, and maximise their potential. In a few thousand years, they will reach the next level of technological achievement and reach for the stars. We should probably exterminate them before they grow too strong.
Advanced aliens might even think we were more technologically advanced than we really are, based on science fiction, and conclude they'd better strike sooner rather than later.
Somebody else has read The Three Body Problem
Could just as well be that our world is contained in a grain of sand 50ft down below the surface of Camber Sands and that there are zillions of people/aliens all around just that no one has ever thought to drill down 50ft below Camber Sands.
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
There's no such thing as queue jumping. Where is queue jumping mentioned in the Highway Code?
The rule is to stay in your lane and merge in turn. Read the Highway Code and stop having a go at "queue jumpers".
Grant Shapps really needs to spend some money advertising recent-ish changes to good driving. Starting with merge-in-turn before going on to how to drive round mini-roundabouts, and not sitting in lorry drivers' blind spots. And today's Mail front page has Boris ordering an inquiry into smart motorways.
I had to attend a Driver Awareness Course today (27 mph in a 20 zone). Interestingly the instructor claimed that Smart Motorways are safer than ones with hard shoulders. Now I have no idea if this is true, no suggestion that he was lying either, and why would he. I wonder if the high profile of the deaths on smart motorways has skewed the debate about safety? He explicitly said that the hard shoulder is incredibly dangerous.
He also said that some police forces have started giving tickets for 1 mph over the speed limit - i.e. no tolerance (10% etc). Be warned,,,
The last thing is ridiculous. The amount you need to watch your speedometer to make sure it doesn't tick briefly over the limit is taking your eyes off the road substantially more, almost certainly increasing accidents.
When my wife first moved to the UK her car's dashboard had a fault that meant most of the time the speedometer, rpm, fuel and temperature gauges didn't work. Occasionally they'd spring into life before the needles subsided again.
She was amazingly good at using the pitch of the engine to judge the speed she was going at, so that when we were driving on the motorway the speedo would infallibly jump up to dead on 70 whenever it gave a reading.
After a few years the MoT rules were changed, and we had to get the dashboard fixed, which brought an end to that fun.
An experienced driver should be able to judge speed without looking at the speedo. The other day I demonstrated this to my daughter, who is learning to drive, and drove bang on 30 without looking through a combination of judging how quickly things were passing by and engine note.
(I'm not so sure I'd have been able to judge 50 quite as well, but could probably hold 70 OK without looking)
Jeremy Cliffe @JeremyCliffe 1h As a rule of thumb, you can usually learn something about what is really going on in German politics by watching where Markus Söder's tactical sensors are leading him. And he seems to think that Armin Laschet is toast.
If Union get right into ein Aderlass is that the prospect of any sort of coalition oot the window, or would getting rid of Laschet improve their chances?
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I'm not pretending that for a moment.
So, in what way is the world of 2021 worse than the world of 2001 or 1921?
Far less habitat for biodiversity. Folk are less happy.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I'm not pretending that for a moment.
So, in what way is the world of 2021 worse than the world of 2001 or 1921?
Versus 1921 you can only be thinking of humans - you can't seriously be thinking of other species, including amphibians, insects, plants etc. Your view is entirely human-centric. I'm not getting at you, 99% of humans agree with you not me. I'm painfully aware of that. But all of the other life on earth (except some domesticated animals which are quasi-human anyway) would agree with me if they had a voice.
What would an extraterrestrial being report back to its masters if it had secretly been observing planet Earth for thousands of years? I think it would say "Planet Earth is a beautiful and rich place, but nowhere near as beautiful and rich as it was, and nowhere near as beautiful and rich as it was before that. It seems to have been plagued by one species with extraordinary spread, scope and effect.
No, they wouldn't say that.
Humans are part of nature. That cat, they seek to maximise their wellbeing and their chance of procreating. That dog, the same.
We are just seeking to do exactly the same as all the other animals.
You seek to make us less like nature, when you ask us not to optimise for ourselves. You are the one demanding that we disregard evolution.
That alien would say, humankind is progressing just as we did. They are gaining new knowledge and new skills, and maximise their potential. In a few thousand years, they will reach the next level of technological achievement and reach for the stars. We should probably exterminate them before they grow too strong.
Advanced aliens might even think we were more technologically advanced than we really are, based on science fiction, and conclude they'd better strike sooner rather than later.
Somebody else has read The Three Body Problem
Could just as well be that our world is contained in a grain of sand 50ft down below the surface of Camber Sands and that there are zillions of people/aliens all around just that no one has ever thought to drill down 50ft below Camber Sands.
One very early science fiction story has aliens turning up at Earth to save everyone from the sun going nova. Except the place is deserted. All the humans had already left in "primitive rockets" - which was considered to be impossible, given the state of development on Earth.
At the end of the story, one of the aliens muses that since the humans seem to be able to technologically advance 100s of times faster than themselves, it would be interesting to see what happened next.
The last line of the story was one the lines of "20 years later, that remark didn't sound funny."
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I'm not pretending that for a moment.
So, in what way is the world of 2021 worse than the world of 2001 or 1921?
Far less habitat for biodiversity. Folk are less happy.
And in 2001 there was no PB. The world had to wait till March 2004 for that great event.
• His Electoral College project defeated • His Energy Renationalisation lie exposed • His £15 wage hypocrisy exposed • A Shadow Cabinet Minister resigned • A founding Trade Union disaffiliated
What £15 wage hypocrisy? Backing certain workers getting £15 an hour is not backing all workers getting that as a minimum. As £10 was big enough for the prefect and resplendent 2019 manifesto as spoken by Him, how is the correct figure now £15?
As for Andy McDonald, the scandal was that he was still in the Shadow Cabinet. His resignation largely seen as a Good Thing. That he presented a policy then resigned in protest, then went to Jizzfest where Tribune chanted his name just makes the point as to who is the tool.
Having wazzocks chant your name is not a positive. Ask John Redwood if he remembers *that*press conference when he ran for Tory leader.
"Who do you think is to blame for petrol stations running out of fuel?"
The public 22% The government 23% The media 47%
YouGov today
It does indicate the public's common sense in attributing the blame
The media should hang their heads in shame, as well as 'me first' selfish motorists
Should the media not report? Yes Boris, no Boris? Be more like China perhaps? That is ridiculous. Blaming the media is, paradoxically, news management by government. Johnson has been invisible, because he knows his back of a fag packet "leadership" makes so many manageable situations turn into crisis.
The problem is not that they reported it, it's the way they reported it that caused the panic. A measured bulletin which said that five petrol stations were having issues getting supply out of the 9,000 in the UK with no risk of any shortages would have been sufficient. Instead it was instant doom-mongering about the lack of petrol.
All the reports I saw on TV were pretty balanced and reported the facts [snip].
Hahahahaha.
The TV news is no less mendacious than the print media, as the last 18 months have shown over and over again. The impression they have tried to give is 'panic!'.
Minor anecdote: I once drove from Manchester to Sheffield in snowy weather on the A623 route (Tideswell Moor). I had wondered whether there would be any issues with closures, but the roads were open, so I went. It was fine - however just outside Tideswell there was a small drift of snow across the road, about the size of a parked car. You had to slow down and wait for a gap in the traffic in the opposite direction. I noted a film crew there. But not in ant great detail because the delay to my journey was less than 15 seconds; the slowest I had to slow to was about 30mph.
Later, I happened to watch the news. The clip I had seen being filmed was used, The impression given was that the whole Peak District was snowed over and impassable. An early lesson in the mendacity of the media - the motivation was clearly to tell an exciting story, rather than to represent the truth.
"Who do you think is to blame for petrol stations running out of fuel?"
The public 22% The government 23% The media 47%
YouGov today
It does indicate the public's common sense in attributing the blame
The media should hang their heads in shame, as well as 'me first' selfish motorists
Should the media not report? Yes Boris, no Boris? Be more like China perhaps? That is ridiculous. Blaming the media is, paradoxically, news management by government. Johnson has been invisible, because he knows his back of a fag packet "leadership" makes so many manageable situations turn into crisis.
Just because you can shout fire doesn't mean you should do so in a crowded theatre.
No the media shouldn't be censored, but yes they should be more responsible.
There's a difference between saying you can report something and saying that you should.
Johnson has been invisible because this is a media created circus that will work itself out in a few days time when the panicking moron's tanks are full and the stations refuelled. There's nothing to say about it - plus of course this being Labour's Conference gives him a good excuse to not be on TV so he'd be silly to do that.
Neither you nor @tlg86 are panicking morons. Try not to be so harsh on yourself.
I wonder which other PBers have filled up over the past few days. I know @DavidL is holding out until tomorrow. Morons all?
Note: I have not filled up since last Monday.
FWIW (and I've this far been staying out of this), my car has been parked outside (with only 80 miles of fuel in the tank) since this madness began. But, I live in London and a bus comes past every three minutes.
So - the petrol station where I normally fill up has fuel again, but is imposing a £30 ration per motorist, which seems sensible under the circumstances.
The petrol station where I finally found some fuel last Saturday had a delivery Saturday morning and has been closed for two solid days.
I wonder whether this fuel crisis will incentivise more people to consider electric cars?
The thing that puts me off is the price tag - double the price of an equivalent non-electric car I reckon. And what about re-sale values? Will people want to buy a four year old electric car without being sure of the condition of the batteries?
You’re not supposed to buy them, you’re supposed to lease them.
Yes, the second hard market is going to be shocking, maybe not at 4 years, but definitely at 7 or 8.
Have a video of someone who bought a $30k Tesla, eight years old, that needs a $20k battery. https://youtube.com/watch?v=EbrIQioiv8k (Yes, this guy makes money from a Youtube channel documenting cheap examples of expensive cars, but he really didn’t expect this one. The car’s a write-off.)
Interesting. So, given this, are electric cars necessarily a step forward environmentally?
There’s a lot of arguments on both sides of that one.
The batteries themselves will be recycled, they’re worth a lot of money for other uses such as home battery packs or giant grid-scale UPS-type implementations such as Tesla are doing, or otherwise they’re full of rare earth metals with resale value.
The metal in the car body will be mostly recycled, the plastics and electronics will be junk though.
There’s a fair argument that today’s new EV batteries will be better than the previous generation, but might still be time-sensitive, as opposed to mileage-sensitive like most engines.
New EV batteries need those rare earth metals, which are coming from some interesting places, with some interesting labour practices.
Many of the future problems are very political in nature:
Charging network isn’t yet fit for purpose.
£40bn ish in road tax and fuel duty that will disappear.
EVs shut out to low-income households
Traditionally-engined vehicles shut out of city centres, mostly belonging to low-paid key workers.
(For reference I just bought a 15-year-old family car for £4k, where’s the EV version of that? I don’t want to spend several hundred quid a month on my daily driver. For many others, that’s not a choice they are able to make).
The first thing to remember about Rare Earth Elements is that they're not rare. It's just that - for a long-time - it wasn't economic to mine them anywhere other than China.
With the rise of EVs, we are going to see REE mines pop up all over the world.
And when the REEs run out?
Why do you think they will run out?
"Reserves" are identified deposits that can be economically recovered using current technology. Resources are what exists.
What happens is that the next slice of resources become economically viable, either through scarcity of reserves causing price rises, or techolnogy etc.
Many rare earth already occur in association with other elements, and there can even be any resources that are in the slag heaps at other mines.
Comments
So effectively removing him made absolutely zero difference to the Tory voteshare and I doubt removing Starmer would be much different.
(I'm not so sure I'd have been able to judge 50 quite as well, but could probably hold 70 OK without looking)
@JeremyCliffe
1h
As a rule of thumb, you can usually learn something about what is really going on in German politics by watching where Markus Söder's tactical sensors are leading him. And he seems to think that Armin Laschet is toast.
https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1442851399344271361?s=20
If Union get right into ein Aderlass is that the prospect of any sort of coalition oot the window, or would getting rid of Laschet improve their chances?
At the end of the story, one of the aliens muses that since the humans seem to be able to technologically advance 100s of times faster than themselves, it would be interesting to see what happened next.
The last line of the story was one the lines of "20 years later, that remark didn't sound funny."
What £15 wage hypocrisy? Backing certain workers getting £15 an hour is not backing all workers getting that as a minimum. As £10 was big enough for the prefect and resplendent 2019 manifesto as spoken by Him, how is the correct figure now £15?
As for Andy McDonald, the scandal was that he was still in the Shadow Cabinet. His resignation largely seen as a Good Thing. That he presented a policy then resigned in protest, then went to Jizzfest where Tribune chanted his name just makes the point as to who is the tool.
Having wazzocks chant your name is not a positive. Ask John Redwood if he remembers *that*press conference when he ran for Tory leader.
The TV news is no less mendacious than the print media, as the last 18 months have shown over and over again. The impression they have tried to give is 'panic!'.
Minor anecdote: I once drove from Manchester to Sheffield in snowy weather on the A623 route (Tideswell Moor). I had wondered whether there would be any issues with closures, but the roads were open, so I went. It was fine - however just outside Tideswell there was a small drift of snow across the road, about the size of a parked car. You had to slow down and wait for a gap in the traffic in the opposite direction. I noted a film crew there. But not in ant great detail because the delay to my journey was less than 15 seconds; the slowest I had to slow to was about 30mph.
Later, I happened to watch the news. The clip I had seen being filmed was used, The impression given was that the whole Peak District was snowed over and impassable. An early lesson in the mendacity of the media - the motivation was clearly to tell an exciting story, rather than to represent the truth.
The petrol station where I finally found some fuel last Saturday had a delivery Saturday morning and has been closed for two solid days.
This is not quite over yet…
New Thread
"Reserves" are identified deposits that can be economically recovered using current technology. Resources are what exists.
What happens is that the next slice of resources become economically viable, either through scarcity of reserves causing price rises, or techolnogy etc.
Many rare earth already occur in association with other elements, and there can even be any resources that are in the slag heaps at other mines.