This is interesting given they likely had some sort of authorisation ?
Just watched Russia’s main political talk show with notorious propagandist Soloviev (Mar 9). Couldn’t believe my ears. Two hardcore pro-Putin guests - Shaknazarov and Bagdasarov - acknowledged the impact of sanctions, military failures, and called for an end to the invasion. https://twitter.com/MaximAlyukov/status/1502337993012658177
The thread seems like it's laying the groundwork for a Russian climbdown. I suspect that we'll go back to the status quo ante bellum minus some of the Russian reserves being diverted to rebuilding Ukraine. Putin is realising how badly he miscalculated.
A handy guide to the stages of any project.
1. Enthusiasm
2. Disillusionment
3. Panic
4. Search for the guilty
5. Punishment of the innocent
6. Praise and honour for the non-participants.
I'd suggest putting 'delusion' between three and four, as the initial panic leads to someone trying, in vain, to impose the view that actually it is all going pretty well.
"Remain Calm. All is well!"
An Animal House reference per day is a welcome development on PB.
I tried to re-work the horse-in-office scene as a Putin-and-the-generals thing, but I don't have the talent. I think the concept has promise, though.
For Putin surely. "You fucked up. You trusted us."
Putin as... Flounder?
Nah man. Putin as John Belushi. Rest of World as Flounder. Ukraine playing the role of Flounder's Uncle's car on a road trip.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
Yep. It’s the same with the nonsense over the Cumbrian coal mine.
I have no idea if it’s deliberate, but the Green twats have been very useful to Putin.
You voted Leave.
That really is the political betting equivalent of “your mum”.
It’s also now clear that any benefits Putin hoped to accrue from Brexit haven’t happened. And what’s despite the EU pushing us to the point I was more or less thinking “sod it, why should we defend Europe”.
It's pretty clear that the sum total of all Putin's policies in the past decade or so have been pretty bad. He clearly did underestimate the West, including the UK and the EU, and probably overestimated the damage done by Brexit. Whisper it, but Putin is basically not that good at what he does.
There’s an interesting thesis to be written on this. The resilience of free democracies. Might look weak to the likes of Putin for a while, and hopelessly divided, but that all stops when the shooting starts.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
With respect I'm not at all. Any plan which focuses only on increasing supply whilst doing nothing to address demand is simply magical thinking.
Those complaining about UKG not supporting Cambo also needs to bear in mind it will take significant time to develop the field into one that is producing. Not sure what sort of timescale that is, though - 5 years? 10?
I haven't even heard if HMG has got the green light from Nicola and the EssEnnPee so the situation could be moot anyway.
If Rishi has any political sense he will suspend the NI increase. He then needs an an emergency budget in a few weeks. Government should announce full scale review of economic situation for an Autumn budget. In light of changed world an across government strategic review that will include energy supply and defence. That is is what is needed and is also good politics.
Rishi will not suspend the NI increase for several reasons, not least NHS and social care needs more money and this increase becomes a separate tax next year on pay slips affirming the extra funding
It is not as unpopular as some think with yesterday's yougov having 43% in favour, 45% against
It also creates a problem for Starmer going forward as he has opposed it and has not put forward a long term alternative
I understand Rishi is to announce a wartime budget whatever that means ,but as far as your strategic review of energy supply is concerned Boris has said he will announce a new transitional energy policy with Kwarteng before the end of the month and expect to see granting of more domestic licences for production of our own oil and gas, onshore wind farms, and maybe Cambo oil field
I am not expecting fracking to get the green light but do not ruie it out
I predict an angry response from the green lobby but we have to accept it is idiotic to close off these areas of domestic self reliance to obtain them from importing not just from Russia but elsewhere
Labour may well face quite a dilemma as this is a big change from their net zero aspiration
This is one of the many challenges facing the country post this war, even if the war has concluded
It’s going to be depressing because no one is going to bother with nuance. It’ll all be “how can you issue new licences when you claim to want to hit net zero” vs. “thank God no more green crap” with no space for the moderate “we need to hit net zero, but get there sustainably and without arming Russia”.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
Didn’t take long.
You need to turn your irony meter on. The mere fact that you are the second poster who couldn't spot it shows how the simple stark fact that we need to use less fossil fuels is simply unthinkable to many. It is an addiction as @LostPassword noted.
Nah, we’ve basically cracked global warming at 2-2.5%. Probably don’t even need to meet the aspirations in Glasgow because big technological shifts are coming.
But I wasn't talking about climate change. I was talking about reducing our reliance on foreign energy.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
Yep. It’s the same with the nonsense over the Cumbrian coal mine.
I have no idea if it’s deliberate, but the Green twats have been very useful to Putin.
You voted Leave.
That really is the political betting equivalent of “your mum”.
Not really. It's meant to remind you that some of us can be in favour of things that also happen to benefit Putin, and we need to keep in mind that "usefulness to Putin" is not the only standard by which to judge things.
Also: your mum.
Do you really think Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine without Brexit?
Remember, Crimea was annexed in 2014.
No, I do not think that. I'm saying Putin believed the breakup of the EU to be in his interests and has actively supported Western politicians who advocate for that. Hence supporting leaving the EU is "useful" to Putin. That doesn't make it wrong.
I do sometimes wonder if Merkel was recruited by the KGB on one of her trips to Moscow during her GDR days.
If Russia wanted a leader to weaken Western unity they could do with someone who:
1) Allows Germany to get hooked on Russian energy 2) Allows German banks to get hooked on Russian criminal finance 3) Runs down German military capabilities 4) Emphasises German trade profits over human rights 5) Causes maximum disruption in the EU and NATO 6) Invites anyone in the Middle East to migrate to Europe
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
With respect I'm not at all. Any plan which focuses only on increasing supply whilst doing nothing to address demand is simply magical thinking.
There's also the different timeframes to think about.
If we want to hit Putin's Russia (quite right too), that means things that can be done now. That can only mean reducing consumption, and probably in a hairshirt way to start with. Increasing production can't happen that quickly, whereas most of us can put a jumper on this afternoon.
Longer term, we want to end up at more efficiency and more zero carbon production. If we can be bothered, most of that can be done now; the amount of time for which we need oil and gas is more about public will than the need for new science and engineering.
Making ourselves dependent on fuels from countries run by pretty terrible people may well have been a mistake, but there's no point crying over spilt milk.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
With respect I'm not at all. Any plan which focuses only on increasing supply whilst doing nothing to address demand is simply magical thinking.
UK Domestic energy consumption is now back to the level it was at in the late 1980s and is continuing to fall. That is in spite of the massive changes that have occurred in society in the last 30 years and the huge growth in computers as a vital part of daily lives. Industrial energy consumption has dropped by almost half in that same period and the only ne that has steadily increased has been transport consumption.
So the idea that we have solely been focusing on increasing supply or changing the energy source is a complete myth.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
Yep. It’s the same with the nonsense over the Cumbrian coal mine.
I have no idea if it’s deliberate, but the Green twats have been very useful to Putin.
You voted Leave.
That really is the political betting equivalent of “your mum”.
Not really. It's meant to remind you that some of us can be in favour of things that also happen to benefit Putin, and we need to keep in mind that "usefulness to Putin" is not the only standard by which to judge things.
Also: your mum.
Do you really think Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine without Brexit?
Remember, Crimea was annexed in 2014.
No, I do not think that. I'm saying Putin believed the breakup of the EU to be in his interests and has actively supported Western politicians who advocate for that. Hence supporting leaving the EU is "useful" to Putin. That doesn't make it wrong.
I do sometimes wonder if Merkel was recruited by the KGB on one of her trips to Moscow during her GDR days.
If Russia wanted a leader to weaken Western unity they could do with someone who:
1) Allows Germany to get hooked on Russian energy 2) Allows German banks to get hooked on Russian criminal finance 3) Runs down German military capabilities 4) Emphasises German trade profits over human rights 5) Causes maximum disruption in the EU and NATO 6) Invites anyone in the Middle East to migrate to Europe
And there is the precedent of Gerhard Schroeder of course.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
With respect I'm not at all. Any plan which focuses only on increasing supply whilst doing nothing to address demand is simply magical thinking.
There's also the different timeframes to think about.
If we want to hit Putin's Russia (quite right too), that means things that can be done now. That can only mean reducing consumption, and probably in a hairshirt way to start with. Increasing production can't happen that quickly, whereas most of us can put a jumper on this afternoon.
Longer term, we want to end up at more efficiency and more zero carbon production. If we can be bothered, most of that can be done now; the amount of time for which we need oil and gas is more about public will than the need for new science and engineering.
Making ourselves dependent on fuels from countries run by pretty terrible people may well have been a mistake, but there's no point crying over spilt milk.
Absolutely the point I've been clumsily trying to make. And yet we are talking about cutting taxes on petrol and home heating. To shore demand up. We'd be better spending that money on free public transport.
If Rishi has any political sense he will suspend the NI increase. He then needs an an emergency budget in a few weeks. Government should announce full scale review of economic situation for an Autumn budget. In light of changed world an across government strategic review that will include energy supply and defence. That is is what is needed and is also good politics.
Rishi will not suspend the NI increase for several reasons, not least NHS and social care needs more money and this increase becomes a separate tax next year on pay slips affirming the extra funding
It is not as unpopular as some think with yesterday's yougov having 43% in favour, 45% against
It also creates a problem for Starmer going forward as he has opposed it and has not put forward a long term alternative
I understand Rishi is to announce a wartime budget whatever that means ,but as far as your strategic review of energy supply is concerned Boris has said he will announce a new transitional energy policy with Kwarteng before the end of the month and expect to see granting of more domestic licences for production of our own oil and gas, onshore wind farms, and maybe Cambo oil field
I am not expecting fracking to get the green light but do not ruie it out
I predict an angry response from the green lobby but we have to accept it is idiotic to close off these areas of domestic self reliance to obtain them from importing not just from Russia but elsewhere
Labour may well face quite a dilemma as this is a big change from their net zero aspiration
This is one of the many challenges facing the country post this war, even if the war has concluded
It’s going to be depressing because no one is going to bother with nuance. It’ll all be “how can you issue new licences when you claim to want to hit net zero” vs. “thank God no more green crap” with no space for the moderate “we need to hit net zero, but get there sustainably and without arming Russia”.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
Didn’t take long.
You need to turn your irony meter on. The mere fact that you are the second poster who couldn't spot it shows how the simple stark fact that we need to use less fossil fuels is simply unthinkable to many. It is an addiction as @LostPassword noted.
Nah, we’ve basically cracked global warming at 2-2.5%. Probably don’t even need to meet the aspirations in Glasgow because big technological shifts are coming.
But I wasn't talking about climate change. I was talking about reducing our reliance on foreign energy.
I mostly agree, in that the things we are doing for climate change are also handy for that, and not being beholden to the Middle East would be nice.
BUT
You either believe in global free trade or you don’t, and I do. That means explicitly NOT trying to be self sufficient in much because that’s not efficient.
Stock had a crowd of 100 or more anonymous masked & hooded demonstrators turn up on the University Open Day to intimate her, and call for her sacking.
"Forced out" or "Intimidated out" is quite a reasonable interpretation, I'd suggest.
It's not something that a 50 year old female academic should have to face, just for disagreeing with someone's opinion and expressing that disagreement publicly.
What about 40 year old or 30 year old female academics?
Emma Barnett has conducted a series of interviews with figures in this 'debate' on Woman's Hour, most recently Maya Forstater and Stock a few weeks ago. Barnett is pretty good at picking away at inconvenient truths for all the interviewees, particularly since I suspect her sympathies tend to be more in one direction.
I listened to the Stock interview while driving on the M8 and may have missed some of the nuance because I was duelling with an arsehole in a white van trying to undertake me, but the gist of it seemed to be that gender self identification was a 'fiction' compared to the necessary and immutable truth of sex, and people who had their feelings hurt by this were snowflakes (I paraphrase). Otoh Barnett pointed out to her that she had left her employer by choice and said university had made statements supporting her, Stock said she had 'felt' unsupported and under threat. Apparently some feelings are more important than others.
I'd say that a lot of the players in this (on both sides) have got high on their own supply of unfamiliar attention, and find it difficult to take that much offered piece of advice to step away from the keyboard.
Nah rubbish. Those arguing for the biological basis for sex are not threatening the transgender community. Indeed many of them are people who have stood solidly behind minorities in that past and continue to do so. They are in no way being abusive towards the transgender community, they are simply putting forward a rational argument on a specific detail. They are certainly not trying to deprive them of a living or drive them out of their jobs.
Those attacking Stock for her views are doing all these things up to and including the threat of physical violence. To the extent that the police warned her to stay away from the University campus and advised her to get bodyguards.
Equating the two as you try to do is dishonest in the extreme.
Well, thanks for clarifying my take on an interview to which I listened. What was your take on the interview? I assume you did listen to it and aren't just barging in with your view, because that sort of behaviour from you would be totally surprising to me.
I was arguing with the fuckwitted idiocy of your comment, not the interview which I am sure, in your normal fashion, you have fundamentally misrepresented to suit your own extremist views.
Awful lot of words to say no.
No need to. I am damn certain the interview did not at any time include the words "Apparently some feelings are more important than others."
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
With respect I'm not at all. Any plan which focuses only on increasing supply whilst doing nothing to address demand is simply magical thinking.
UK Domestic energy consumption is now back to the level it was at in the late 1980s and is continuing to fall. That is in spite of the massive changes that have occurred in society in the last 30 years and the huge growth in computers as a vital part of daily lives. Industrial energy consumption has dropped by almost half in that same period and the only ne that has steadily increased has been transport consumption.
So the idea that we have solely been focusing on increasing supply or changing the energy source is a complete myth.
I was very much thinking about where we go from here. Not where we have come from. And transport is a huge one.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
With respect I'm not at all. Any plan which focuses only on increasing supply whilst doing nothing to address demand is simply magical thinking.
Those complaining about UKG not supporting Cambo also needs to bear in mind it will take significant time to develop the field into one that is producing. Not sure what sort of timescale that is, though - 5 years? 10?
I haven't even heard if HMG has got the green light from Nicola and the EssEnnPee so the situation could be moot anyway.
Nicola said Cambo is a UK decision
Whoosh. Despite the bleating from various parties on here about the SNP holding back the UK's glorious hydrocarbonised future, Nicola is stating a stone cold fact.
I've never understood why goalkeepers are treated like they are made of glass and the tiniest touch means a foul for some referees (the occasions when they fall over and play rightly continues are rare), yet when they foul someone else eg with a late challenge they usually get away with it.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
With respect I'm not at all. Any plan which focuses only on increasing supply whilst doing nothing to address demand is simply magical thinking.
UK Domestic energy consumption is now back to the level it was at in the late 1980s and is continuing to fall. That is in spite of the massive changes that have occurred in society in the last 30 years and the huge growth in computers as a vital part of daily lives. Industrial energy consumption has dropped by almost half in that same period and the only ne that has steadily increased has been transport consumption.
So the idea that we have solely been focusing on increasing supply or changing the energy source is a complete myth.
Why is that? Double glazing and loft insulation? I remember growing up in my parents' house in the 1970s and the upstairs was an absolute ice block, despite the paraffin heater on the landing. (You go in that house now and it's perfectly warm even with the central heating switched off in the depths of winter.)
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
Yep. It’s the same with the nonsense over the Cumbrian coal mine.
I have no idea if it’s deliberate, but the Green twats have been very useful to Putin.
You voted Leave.
That really is the political betting equivalent of “your mum”.
It’s also now clear that any benefits Putin hoped to accrue from Brexit haven’t happened. And what’s despite the EU pushing us to the point I was more or less thinking “sod it, why should we defend Europe”.
It's pretty clear that the sum total of all Putin's policies in the past decade or so have been pretty bad. He clearly did underestimate the West, including the UK and the EU, and probably overestimated the damage done by Brexit. Whisper it, but Putin is basically not that good at what he does.
He is a very good tactician and a very bad strategist.
If Rishi has any political sense he will suspend the NI increase. He then needs an an emergency budget in a few weeks. Government should announce full scale review of economic situation for an Autumn budget. In light of changed world an across government strategic review that will include energy supply and defence. That is is what is needed and is also good politics.
Rishi will not suspend the NI increase for several reasons, not least NHS and social care needs more money and this increase becomes a separate tax next year on pay slips affirming the extra funding
It is not as unpopular as some think with yesterday's yougov having 43% in favour, 45% against
It also creates a problem for Starmer going forward as he has opposed it and has not put forward a long term alternative
I understand Rishi is to announce a wartime budget whatever that means ,but as far as your strategic review of energy supply is concerned Boris has said he will announce a new transitional energy policy with Kwarteng before the end of the month and expect to see granting of more domestic licences for production of our own oil and gas, onshore wind farms, and maybe Cambo oil field
I am not expecting fracking to get the green light but do not ruie it out
I predict an angry response from the green lobby but we have to accept it is idiotic to close off these areas of domestic self reliance to obtain them from importing not just from Russia but elsewhere
Labour may well face quite a dilemma as this is a big change from their net zero aspiration
This is one of the many challenges facing the country post this war, even if the war has concluded
It’s going to be depressing because no one is going to bother with nuance. It’ll all be “how can you issue new licences when you claim to want to hit net zero” vs. “thank God no more green crap” with no space for the moderate “we need to hit net zero, but get there sustainably and without arming Russia”.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
Didn’t take long.
You need to turn your irony meter on. The mere fact that you are the second poster who couldn't spot it shows how the simple stark fact that we need to use less fossil fuels is simply unthinkable to many. It is an addiction as @LostPassword noted.
Nah, we’ve basically cracked global warming at 2-2.5%. Probably don’t even need to meet the aspirations in Glasgow because big technological shifts are coming.
But I wasn't talking about climate change. I was talking about reducing our reliance on foreign energy.
I mostly agree, in that the things we are doing for climate change are also handy for that, and not being beholden to the Middle East would be nice.
BUT
You either believe in global free trade or you don’t, and I do. That means explicitly NOT trying to be self sufficient in much because that’s not efficient.
That is a maximalist position - and I bet you have exceptions to global free trade....
Do you believe that there should be global free trade in nuclear weapons and strategic launch systems?
There is also a reason that various items are specifically not on the GATT agenda(s)......
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
With respect I'm not at all. Any plan which focuses only on increasing supply whilst doing nothing to address demand is simply magical thinking.
UK Domestic energy consumption is now back to the level it was at in the late 1980s and is continuing to fall. That is in spite of the massive changes that have occurred in society in the last 30 years and the huge growth in computers as a vital part of daily lives. Industrial energy consumption has dropped by almost half in that same period and the only ne that has steadily increased has been transport consumption.
So the idea that we have solely been focusing on increasing supply or changing the energy source is a complete myth.
Why is that? Double glazing and loft insulation? I remember growing up in my parents' house in the 1970s and the upstairs was an absolute ice block, despite the paraffin heater on the landing. (You go in that house now and it's perfectly warm even with the central heating switched off in the depths of winter.)
No idea. I assume the move to low energy lighbulbs must have had some impact. And increasing insulation etc as well. Like you I remember as a kid waking up on a winter morning and having ice on the inside of the windows.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
With respect I'm not at all. Any plan which focuses only on increasing supply whilst doing nothing to address demand is simply magical thinking.
Those complaining about UKG not supporting Cambo also needs to bear in mind it will take significant time to develop the field into one that is producing. Not sure what sort of timescale that is, though - 5 years? 10?
I haven't even heard if HMG has got the green light from Nicola and the EssEnnPee so the situation could be moot anyway.
Nicola said Cambo is a UK decision
Whoosh. Despite the bleating from various parties on here about the SNP holding back the UK's glorious hydrocarbonised future, Nicola is stating a stone cold fact.
She also stated she was opposed to it. And when asked by Greta whether it was not the case that oil had formed part of her drive for independence said "I don't recall that" to general amusement.
Stock had a crowd of 100 or more anonymous masked & hooded demonstrators turn up on the University Open Day to intimate her, and call for her sacking.
"Forced out" or "Intimidated out" is quite a reasonable interpretation, I'd suggest.
It's not something that a 50 year old female academic should have to face, just for disagreeing with someone's opinion and expressing that disagreement publicly.
What about 40 year old or 30 year old female academics?
Emma Barnett has conducted a series of interviews with figures in this 'debate' on Woman's Hour, most recently Maya Forstater and Stock a few weeks ago. Barnett is pretty good at picking away at inconvenient truths for all the interviewees, particularly since I suspect her sympathies tend to be more in one direction.
I listened to the Stock interview while driving on the M8 and may have missed some of the nuance because I was duelling with an arsehole in a white van trying to undertake me, but the gist of it seemed to be that gender self identification was a 'fiction' compared to the necessary and immutable truth of sex, and people who had their feelings hurt by this were snowflakes (I paraphrase). Otoh Barnett pointed out to her that she had left her employer by choice and said university had made statements supporting her, Stock said she had 'felt' unsupported and under threat. Apparently some feelings are more important than others.
I'd say that a lot of the players in this (on both sides) have got high on their own supply of unfamiliar attention, and find it difficult to take that much offered piece of advice to step away from the keyboard.
Nah rubbish. Those arguing for the biological basis for sex are not threatening the transgender community. Indeed many of them are people who have stood solidly behind minorities in that past and continue to do so. They are in no way being abusive towards the transgender community, they are simply putting forward a rational argument on a specific detail. They are certainly not trying to deprive them of a living or drive them out of their jobs.
Those attacking Stock for her views are doing all these things up to and including the threat of physical violence. To the extent that the police warned her to stay away from the University campus and advised her to get bodyguards.
Equating the two as you try to do is dishonest in the extreme.
Well, thanks for clarifying my take on an interview to which I listened. What was your take on the interview? I assume you did listen to it and aren't just barging in with your view, because that sort of behaviour from you would be totally surprising to me.
I was arguing with the fuckwitted idiocy of your comment, not the interview which I am sure, in your normal fashion, you have fundamentally misrepresented to suit your own extremist views.
Awful lot of words to say no.
No need to. I am damn certain the interview did not at any time include the words "Apparently some feelings are more important than others."
So, we have 'I didn't listen to the interview but I'm damn sure what was in it and you're misinterpreting it'.
As I've said before I tend to avoid this subject because I don't have a fixed view on it, but those who do are an absolute pain in the hole about making sure you know what are their views. Thanks for adding more confirmational grist to that mill.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
Yep. It’s the same with the nonsense over the Cumbrian coal mine.
I have no idea if it’s deliberate, but the Green twats have been very useful to Putin.
You voted Leave.
That really is the political betting equivalent of “your mum”.
Not really. It's meant to remind you that some of us can be in favour of things that also happen to benefit Putin, and we need to keep in mind that "usefulness to Putin" is not the only standard by which to judge things.
Also: your mum.
Do you really think Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine without Brexit?
Remember, Crimea was annexed in 2014.
No, I do not think that. I'm saying Putin believed the breakup of the EU to be in his interests and has actively supported Western politicians who advocate for that. Hence supporting leaving the EU is "useful" to Putin. That doesn't make it wrong.
I do sometimes wonder if Merkel was recruited by the KGB on one of her trips to Moscow during her GDR days.
If Russia wanted a leader to weaken Western unity they could do with someone who:
1) Allows Germany to get hooked on Russian energy 2) Allows German banks to get hooked on Russian criminal finance 3) Runs down German military capabilities 4) Emphasises German trade profits over human rights 5) Causes maximum disruption in the EU and NATO 6) Invites anyone in the Middle East to migrate to Europe
And there is the precedent of Gerhard Schroeder of course.
He couldn't even be bothered to pretend that he'd not been bought and paid for.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
With respect I'm not at all. Any plan which focuses only on increasing supply whilst doing nothing to address demand is simply magical thinking.
UK Domestic energy consumption is now back to the level it was at in the late 1980s and is continuing to fall. That is in spite of the massive changes that have occurred in society in the last 30 years and the huge growth in computers as a vital part of daily lives. Industrial energy consumption has dropped by almost half in that same period and the only ne that has steadily increased has been transport consumption.
So the idea that we have solely been focusing on increasing supply or changing the energy source is a complete myth.
Why is that? Double glazing and loft insulation? I remember growing up in my parents' house in the 1970s and the upstairs was an absolute ice block, despite the paraffin heater on the landing. (You go in that house now and it's perfectly warm even with the central heating switched off in the depths of winter.)
No idea. I assume the move to low energy lighbulbs must have had some impact. And increasing insulation etc as well. Like you I remember as a kid waking up on a winter morning and having ice on the inside of the windows.
Presumably deindustrialization has a lot to do with it.
@nexta_tv Sergey Khlan, a deputy of the #Kherson regional council, reports that the occupiers are preparing a referendum on the creation of a so-called Kherson People's Republic.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
Yep. It’s the same with the nonsense over the Cumbrian coal mine.
I have no idea if it’s deliberate, but the Green twats have been very useful to Putin.
You voted Leave.
That really is the political betting equivalent of “your mum”.
Not really. It's meant to remind you that some of us can be in favour of things that also happen to benefit Putin, and we need to keep in mind that "usefulness to Putin" is not the only standard by which to judge things.
Also: your mum.
Do you really think Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine without Brexit?
Remember, Crimea was annexed in 2014.
No, I do not think that. I'm saying Putin believed the breakup of the EU to be in his interests and has actively supported Western politicians who advocate for that. Hence supporting leaving the EU is "useful" to Putin. That doesn't make it wrong.
I do sometimes wonder if Merkel was recruited by the KGB on one of her trips to Moscow during her GDR days.
If Russia wanted a leader to weaken Western unity they could do with someone who:
1) Allows Germany to get hooked on Russian energy 2) Allows German banks to get hooked on Russian criminal finance 3) Runs down German military capabilities 4) Emphasises German trade profits over human rights 5) Causes maximum disruption in the EU and NATO 6) Invites anyone in the Middle East to migrate to Europe
We had our local Ukraine all-party rally (a couple of hundred people) organised by Jeremy Hunt, with the focus on refugees. I took a straw poll of whether people in Godalming would be prepared to accept 10 Ukrainians without visas as part of a national welcome to 20,000 as a start - pretty much everyone raised their hands. Obviously a biased sample of people who care about the issue, but I do think Patel or Johnson or whoever it is has been behind the curve on this. People are uneasy about chaos immigration - hiding in lorries, taking dinghies over the Channel - but they're absolutely up for a Government-sponsored programme to host large numbers. The local Council is completely swamped with offers to put people up indefinitely.
After the rally, incidentally, an elderly Tory-looking lady (I know one can't generalise, but posh coat and pearls) came up to me and said she'd never been a member of any political party but had now joined Labour "since I have come to the conclusion that the Government is corrupt". 1 person is ultimate anecdata, but I do think the Blue Wall is quietly crumbling.
@nexta_tv Sergey Khlan, a deputy of the #Kherson regional council, reports that the occupiers are preparing a referendum on the creation of a so-called Kherson People's Republic.
Jeez, mix it up a little Russia, there is such a thing as being too predictable when you're setting up a puppet government, especially when you've done it several times before.
Italian authorities have seized a €530m (£444m) superyacht owned by Russian businessman Andrey Melnichenko as part of EU sanctions following Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Sy A – short for Sailing Yacht A – was seized on Friday evening in the port of Trieste after being identified by Italian police as belonging to billionaire owner of EuroChem Group, a major fertiliser producer, and the coal company SUEK.
Video footage reportedly showed police cars with flashing lights approaching the yacht, said to be one of the largest in the world, and boarding it.
We had our local Ukraine all-party rally (a couple of hundred people) organised by Jeremy Hunt, with the focus on refugees. I took a straw poll of whether people in Godalming would be prepared to accept 10 Ukrainians without visas as part of a national welcome to 20,000 as a start - pretty much everyone raised their hands. Obviously a biased sample of people who care about the issue, but I do think Patel or Johnson or whoever it is has been behind the curve on this. People are uneasy about chaos immigration - hiding in lorries, taking dinghies over the Channel - but they're absolutely up for a Government-sponsored programme to host large numbers. The local Council is completely swamped with offers to put people up indefinitely.
After the rally, incidentally, an elderly Tory-looking lady (I know one can't generalise, but posh coat and pearls) came up to me and said she'd never been a member of any political party but had now joined Labour "since I have come to the conclusion that the Government is corrupt". 1 person is ultimate anecdata, but I do think the Blue Wall is quietly crumbling.
Interesting way to look at the numbers. You say "20,000" and it's easy to think gosh, that's a lot of people. But then you work out that it's 1 person coming to Banff and you think gosh, what's all the fuss? Presentation is key.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
With respect I'm not at all. Any plan which focuses only on increasing supply whilst doing nothing to address demand is simply magical thinking.
Those complaining about UKG not supporting Cambo also needs to bear in mind it will take significant time to develop the field into one that is producing. Not sure what sort of timescale that is, though - 5 years? 10?
I haven't even heard if HMG has got the green light from Nicola and the EssEnnPee so the situation could be moot anyway.
Nicola said Cambo is a UK decision
Whoosh. Despite the bleating from various parties on here about the SNP holding back the UK's glorious hydrocarbonised future, Nicola is stating a stone cold fact.
She also stated she was opposed to it. And when asked by Greta whether it was not the case that oil had formed part of her drive for independence said "I don't recall that" to general amusement.
Alomost as amusing as recalling all and sundry Unionists claiming NS oil was a busted flush.
I guess the long record of the FLSOJ and the government he heads consulting and seeking accord with the Scottish government means Cambo is toast.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
Yep. It’s the same with the nonsense over the Cumbrian coal mine.
I have no idea if it’s deliberate, but the Green twats have been very useful to Putin.
You voted Leave.
That really is the political betting equivalent of “your mum”.
Not really. It's meant to remind you that some of us can be in favour of things that also happen to benefit Putin, and we need to keep in mind that "usefulness to Putin" is not the only standard by which to judge things.
Also: your mum.
Do you really think Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine without Brexit?
Remember, Crimea was annexed in 2014.
No, I do not think that. I'm saying Putin believed the breakup of the EU to be in his interests and has actively supported Western politicians who advocate for that. Hence supporting leaving the EU is "useful" to Putin. That doesn't make it wrong.
I do sometimes wonder if Merkel was recruited by the KGB on one of her trips to Moscow during her GDR days.
If Russia wanted a leader to weaken Western unity they could do with someone who:
1) Allows Germany to get hooked on Russian energy 2) Allows German banks to get hooked on Russian criminal finance 3) Runs down German military capabilities 4) Emphasises German trade profits over human rights 5) Causes maximum disruption in the EU and NATO 6) Invites anyone in the Middle East to migrate to Europe
What are you talking about in point 5?
See all the aggravation about finance a decade ago - the dispute between Germany and Greece as an example.
And we could discuss how Merkel wasn't helpful to Cameron's EU negotiations.
Nor has Germany's attitude towards NATO been conducive to Western unity - see the attempts to disrupt arms shipments to Ukraine before war started as an example.
Nick. Do you think there is any possible future for Ukraine as an independent country, a functioning democracy, and a growing western-oriented economy without the military defeat of Russia and the manifest failure of Putin?
The war is not about the borders of Ukraine. It is not about Crimea and the Donbas. It's not even about Ukrainian membership of NATO. It is about the existence of a democratic Ukraine that is free of a dependency on Russia. All the rest is mere pretext.
There may come a point when Ukraine is sufficiently brutalised by war that they choose a future as a Russian vassal state as a least-worst option compared to continued resistance. Given what is happening in Kharkiv, Mariupol and elsewhere it would be an understandable choice. But that is what is at stake.
I absolutely think there's a possible future for Ukraine as an nidependent country with a functioning democracy and strong western orientation including EU membership which has agreed to be strictly neutral in East-West disputes - the model would be post-WW2 Finland. People used to sneer about "Finlandisation" but they've done well out of it - all the above and zero threat from the big, sometimes bullying, neighbour, what's not to like? Sure, in an ideal world a completely independent nation could choose to join NATO or anything else, but in terms of everyday living agreeing not to be part of a hostile bloc is really not such a big deal - especially when said bloc don't actually want you to join it because you have an ongoing territorial dispute.
Conversely, relying on Putin falling isn't really a guarantee of anything. Say Putin was replaced by Zhirinovsky - would that make Ukraine feel safer?
The problem isn't neutrality IMO. It's agreeing the future of Crimea and the Donbas. That's where emotion takes a grip on both sides.
80% of independent Ukraine’s gas reserves are in the Crimean EEZ
But 85% of Crimean water comes from the Ukrainian mainland
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
With respect I'm not at all. Any plan which focuses only on increasing supply whilst doing nothing to address demand is simply magical thinking.
UK Domestic energy consumption is now back to the level it was at in the late 1980s and is continuing to fall. That is in spite of the massive changes that have occurred in society in the last 30 years and the huge growth in computers as a vital part of daily lives. Industrial energy consumption has dropped by almost half in that same period and the only ne that has steadily increased has been transport consumption.
So the idea that we have solely been focusing on increasing supply or changing the energy source is a complete myth.
Why is that? Double glazing and loft insulation? I remember growing up in my parents' house in the 1970s and the upstairs was an absolute ice block, despite the paraffin heater on the landing. (You go in that house now and it's perfectly warm even with the central heating switched off in the depths of winter.)
No idea. I assume the move to low energy lighbulbs must have had some impact. And increasing insulation etc as well. Like you I remember as a kid waking up on a winter morning and having ice on the inside of the windows.
Water and space heating tend to be the big ones; A 2 kW heater for a room or a 5kW shower is a lot of 60 W light bulbs. And whilst a lot of houses are a lot better insulated than in the 1970s, there's still a fair bit of fairly low-hanging fruit there.
Transport is trickier to solve. We've got a model of lowish density suburbia coupled with edge of town retail and business parks. (And it's not especially about us all wanting gardens and front doors- Gerogian squares and metroland suburbs work better and sell well.) It's pretty inefficient on all sorts of levels, but hard to undo.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
With respect I'm not at all. Any plan which focuses only on increasing supply whilst doing nothing to address demand is simply magical thinking.
UK Domestic energy consumption is now back to the level it was at in the late 1980s and is continuing to fall. That is in spite of the massive changes that have occurred in society in the last 30 years and the huge growth in computers as a vital part of daily lives. Industrial energy consumption has dropped by almost half in that same period and the only ne that has steadily increased has been transport consumption.
So the idea that we have solely been focusing on increasing supply or changing the energy source is a complete myth.
Why is that? Double glazing and loft insulation? I remember growing up in my parents' house in the 1970s and the upstairs was an absolute ice block, despite the paraffin heater on the landing. (You go in that house now and it's perfectly warm even with the central heating switched off in the depths of winter.)
No idea. I assume the move to low energy lighbulbs must have had some impact. And increasing insulation etc as well. Like you I remember as a kid waking up on a winter morning and having ice on the inside of the windows.
Presumably deindustrialization has a lot to do with it.
Industrial usage has dropped by half in the same period but that doesn't really explain why domestic usage rose until around 2010 and has then dropped back to late 80s levels in the last decade. In fact since 2010 domestic consumption has dropped by around 20%. There has to be another reason for that.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
Yep. It’s the same with the nonsense over the Cumbrian coal mine.
I have no idea if it’s deliberate, but the Green twats have been very useful to Putin.
You voted Leave.
That really is the political betting equivalent of “your mum”.
Not really. It's meant to remind you that some of us can be in favour of things that also happen to benefit Putin, and we need to keep in mind that "usefulness to Putin" is not the only standard by which to judge things.
Also: your mum.
Do you really think Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine without Brexit?
Remember, Crimea was annexed in 2014.
No, I do not think that. I'm saying Putin believed the breakup of the EU to be in his interests and has actively supported Western politicians who advocate for that. Hence supporting leaving the EU is "useful" to Putin. That doesn't make it wrong.
I do sometimes wonder if Merkel was recruited by the KGB on one of her trips to Moscow during her GDR days.
If Russia wanted a leader to weaken Western unity they could do with someone who:
1) Allows Germany to get hooked on Russian energy 2) Allows German banks to get hooked on Russian criminal finance 3) Runs down German military capabilities 4) Emphasises German trade profits over human rights 5) Causes maximum disruption in the EU and NATO 6) Invites anyone in the Middle East to migrate to Europe
What are you talking about in point 5?
I can only imagine it refers to being nasty to that nice Mr Cameron when he was trying to cut yet another special deal for the UK aka England in the EU.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
Yep. It’s the same with the nonsense over the Cumbrian coal mine.
I have no idea if it’s deliberate, but the Green twats have been very useful to Putin.
You voted Leave.
That really is the political betting equivalent of “your mum”.
Not really. It's meant to remind you that some of us can be in favour of things that also happen to benefit Putin, and we need to keep in mind that "usefulness to Putin" is not the only standard by which to judge things.
Also: your mum.
Do you really think Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine without Brexit?
Remember, Crimea was annexed in 2014.
No, I do not think that. I'm saying Putin believed the breakup of the EU to be in his interests and has actively supported Western politicians who advocate for that. Hence supporting leaving the EU is "useful" to Putin. That doesn't make it wrong.
I do sometimes wonder if Merkel was recruited by the KGB on one of her trips to Moscow during her GDR days.
If Russia wanted a leader to weaken Western unity they could do with someone who:
1) Allows Germany to get hooked on Russian energy 2) Allows German banks to get hooked on Russian criminal finance 3) Runs down German military capabilities 4) Emphasises German trade profits over human rights 5) Causes maximum disruption in the EU and NATO 6) Invites anyone in the Middle East to migrate to Europe
What are you talking about in point 5?
See all the aggravation about finance a decade ago - the dispute between Germany and Greece as an example.
And we could discuss how Merkel wasn't helpful to Cameron's EU negotiations.
Nor has Germany's attitude towards NATO been conducive to Western unity - see the attempts to disrupt arms shipments to Ukraine before war started as an example.
Yes, it was the latter point that I thought you might have meant, and I wanted to remind you that Merkel is no longer Germany's leader.
I think you're being overly harsh overall, but it's certain that she made some big errors. The whole nuclear power one stands out to as particularly egregious. I can find rationalisations for many mistakes, but I have never been able to wrap my head around that thinking.
Nick. Do you think there is any possible future for Ukraine as an independent country, a functioning democracy, and a growing western-oriented economy without the military defeat of Russia and the manifest failure of Putin?
The war is not about the borders of Ukraine. It is not about Crimea and the Donbas. It's not even about Ukrainian membership of NATO. It is about the existence of a democratic Ukraine that is free of a dependency on Russia. All the rest is mere pretext.
There may come a point when Ukraine is sufficiently brutalised by war that they choose a future as a Russian vassal state as a least-worst option compared to continued resistance. Given what is happening in Kharkiv, Mariupol and elsewhere it would be an understandable choice. But that is what is at stake.
I absolutely think there's a possible future for Ukraine as an nidependent country with a functioning democracy and strong western orientation including EU membership which has agreed to be strictly neutral in East-West disputes - .
Why why why are you so cavalier about them 'agreeing' to be strictly neutral? They might well do it for sake of a quiet life and that will be their choice, but it should be outrageous for us, as it is no more complicated than bowing to a russian demand of 'Do as we say and remain "neutral" or we will kill you'.
You present it as a simple concession, and it may well be one of the least destructive they can offer, but sacrificing your ability to choose an independent foreign policy is not a simple concession.
If they consider they must agree it it should be seen for what it is, a violent imposition, not some simple choice.
Also, given the EU attempts (not always successfully) to coordinate its responses to things, how could EU membership be compatible with a declaration that they must be neutral on certain issues? It would prevent even the possibility of EU unity at best and at worst mandate Ukraine to veto measures Russia declares to not be neutral.
We had our local Ukraine all-party rally (a couple of hundred people) organised by Jeremy Hunt, with the focus on refugees. I took a straw poll of whether people in Godalming would be prepared to accept 10 Ukrainians without visas as part of a national welcome to 20,000 as a start - pretty much everyone raised their hands. Obviously a biased sample of people who care about the issue, but I do think Patel or Johnson or whoever it is has been behind the curve on this. People are uneasy about chaos immigration - hiding in lorries, taking dinghies over the Channel - but they're absolutely up for a Government-sponsored programme to host large numbers. The local Council is completely swamped with offers to put people up indefinitely.
After the rally, incidentally, an elderly Tory-looking lady (I know one can't generalise, but posh coat and pearls) came up to me and said she'd never been a member of any political party but had now joined Labour "since I have come to the conclusion that the Government is corrupt". 1 person is ultimate anecdata, but I do think the Blue Wall is quietly crumbling.
Interesting way to look at the numbers. You say "20,000" and it's easy to think gosh, that's a lot of people. But then you work out that it's 1 person coming to Banff and you think gosh, what's all the fuss? Presentation is key.
Yes, that was my point. I think it would actually take 100 refugees to come to Godalming, population 21,000, (equivalent to 200,000 nationally) before most people noticed at all.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
Yep. It’s the same with the nonsense over the Cumbrian coal mine.
I have no idea if it’s deliberate, but the Green twats have been very useful to Putin.
You voted Leave.
That really is the political betting equivalent of “your mum”.
Not really. It's meant to remind you that some of us can be in favour of things that also happen to benefit Putin, and we need to keep in mind that "usefulness to Putin" is not the only standard by which to judge things.
Also: your mum.
Do you really think Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine without Brexit?
Remember, Crimea was annexed in 2014.
No, I do not think that. I'm saying Putin believed the breakup of the EU to be in his interests and has actively supported Western politicians who advocate for that. Hence supporting leaving the EU is "useful" to Putin. That doesn't make it wrong.
I do sometimes wonder if Merkel was recruited by the KGB on one of her trips to Moscow during her GDR days.
If Russia wanted a leader to weaken Western unity they could do with someone who:
1) Allows Germany to get hooked on Russian energy 2) Allows German banks to get hooked on Russian criminal finance 3) Runs down German military capabilities 4) Emphasises German trade profits over human rights 5) Causes maximum disruption in the EU and NATO 6) Invites anyone in the Middle East to migrate to Europe
Surely we (well, Johnson, at least) get the prize for causing maximum disruption in the EU? Don't we? If we can't even claim that then I'll start to think this whole Brexit thing was a waste of time
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
With respect I'm not at all. Any plan which focuses only on increasing supply whilst doing nothing to address demand is simply magical thinking.
UK Domestic energy consumption is now back to the level it was at in the late 1980s and is continuing to fall. That is in spite of the massive changes that have occurred in society in the last 30 years and the huge growth in computers as a vital part of daily lives. Industrial energy consumption has dropped by almost half in that same period and the only ne that has steadily increased has been transport consumption.
So the idea that we have solely been focusing on increasing supply or changing the energy source is a complete myth.
Why is that? Double glazing and loft insulation? I remember growing up in my parents' house in the 1970s and the upstairs was an absolute ice block, despite the paraffin heater on the landing. (You go in that house now and it's perfectly warm even with the central heating switched off in the depths of winter.)
No idea. I assume the move to low energy lighbulbs must have had some impact. And increasing insulation etc as well. Like you I remember as a kid waking up on a winter morning and having ice on the inside of the windows.
Presumably deindustrialization has a lot to do with it.
Industrial usage has dropped by half in the same period but that doesn't really explain why domestic usage rose until around 2010 and has then dropped back to late 80s levels in the last decade. In fact since 2010 domestic consumption has dropped by around 20%. There has to be another reason for that.
I presume most things, not just light bulbs, are now more efficient.
I'm slightly and happily shocked that Americans have SUCH a positive view of France.
Yep, when I read Nigel's post before clicking through I was thinking that being as popular as France in the US might be a pretty low bar - 'freedom fries' etc
We had our local Ukraine all-party rally (a couple of hundred people) organised by Jeremy Hunt, with the focus on refugees. I took a straw poll of whether people in Godalming would be prepared to accept 10 Ukrainians without visas as part of a national welcome to 20,000 as a start - pretty much everyone raised their hands. Obviously a biased sample of people who care about the issue, but I do think Patel or Johnson or whoever it is has been behind the curve on this. People are uneasy about chaos immigration - hiding in lorries, taking dinghies over the Channel - but they're absolutely up for a Government-sponsored programme to host large numbers. The local Council is completely swamped with offers to put people up indefinitely.
After the rally, incidentally, an elderly Tory-looking lady (I know one can't generalise, but posh coat and pearls) came up to me and said she'd never been a member of any political party but had now joined Labour "since I have come to the conclusion that the Government is corrupt". 1 person is ultimate anecdata, but I do think the Blue Wall is quietly crumbling.
Interesting way to look at the numbers. You say "20,000" and it's easy to think gosh, that's a lot of people. But then you work out that it's 1 person coming to Banff and you think gosh, what's all the fuss? Presentation is key.
Yes, that was my point. I think it would actually take 100 refugees to come to Godalming, population 21,000, (equivalent to 200,000 nationally) before most people noticed at all.
I agree. I was trying to work out the numbers yesterday based on my local area, and also came up with about 200,000 nationally.
It is simply unacceptable for a senior lawyer such as @Keir_Starmer to so misstate the law on #WomensRights. He needs to take a look at threads from @BluskyeAllison & @legalfeminist & set the record straight.
Starmer is even more stupid than I thought, the clown does not even know what a woman is.
A transwoman *with a gender reassignment certificate* is legally a woman, surely?
1. The Equality Act 2020 S.212(1) defines a woman as "a female of any age".
2. There is no legal definition of transgender. The Equality Act -S.7(1) defines the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" and describes persons with that protected characteristic as "transsexual persons".
3. The GRA 2004 does not contain a definition of transgender either. Persons who can acquire a GR certificate are referred to as people with gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder or transsexualism.
4. Those men with a GRC can legally call themselves women for many but, note, not all purposes. But note that men with a GRC is not the same as men who claim to be transwomen. The latter legally are not women. The former is a much smaller group than the latter, insofar as the latter can even be defined let alone counted.
5. In fact, there is no legal definition or indeed common understanding of what "transwoman" means. It can mean someone with gender dysphoria to someone who simply likes dressing in womens clothes from time to time or a man with autogynephilia.
6. The Equality Act 2010 does two things: (1) it outlaws discrimination against those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (as defined under the GRA); but (2) it does permit those with a GRC to be excluded from certain spaces on the grounds of sex where it is necessary to do so in order to preserve a single sex space. See Schedule 3 sections 26-28.
Sir Keir Starmer should know all these things or should be able to get advice from lawyers specialising in this area of law or, indeed, he could read the Acts.
For him to say as loosely as he has done that "transwomen" (undefined) are women (a defined term) is not correct. The problem with such loose language is that any change in the legal definitions will necessarily have an impact on the legal rights that result from those definitions. That will mean, for instance, that women would no longer have single sex spaces. You may think this of no importance. But let me ask this. If you were a woman who had been raped and violently abused why should you run the risk of facing a man in a rape shelter simply because he claims to be a woman? Or why should you run the risk of facing a man with autogynephilia in a woman's changing room? (There are some disturbing videos of what this means in practice, I should warn you.)
It will also mean that equal pay rights, for instance, which are dependant on sex will be impacted. Discrimination on the basis of sex continues but if you alter definitions and rights without recognising this you make it impossible to describe the reality of what happens and make it legally and practically difficult to deal with it. The issue of equal pay and pay comparators is hard enough as it is without having it skewed by including men claiming to be women.
We had our local Ukraine all-party rally (a couple of hundred people) organised by Jeremy Hunt, with the focus on refugees. I took a straw poll of whether people in Godalming would be prepared to accept 10 Ukrainians without visas as part of a national welcome to 20,000 as a start - pretty much everyone raised their hands. Obviously a biased sample of people who care about the issue, but I do think Patel or Johnson or whoever it is has been behind the curve on this. People are uneasy about chaos immigration - hiding in lorries, taking dinghies over the Channel - but they're absolutely up for a Government-sponsored programme to host large numbers. The local Council is completely swamped with offers to put people up indefinitely.
After the rally, incidentally, an elderly Tory-looking lady (I know one can't generalise, but posh coat and pearls) came up to me and said she'd never been a member of any political party but had now joined Labour "since I have come to the conclusion that the Government is corrupt". 1 person is ultimate anecdata, but I do think the Blue Wall is quietly crumbling.
Interesting way to look at the numbers. You say "20,000" and it's easy to think gosh, that's a lot of people. But then you work out that it's 1 person coming to Banff and you think gosh, what's all the fuss? Presentation is key.
Yes, that was my point. I think it would actually take 100 refugees to come to Godalming, population 21,000, (equivalent to 200,000 nationally) before most people noticed at all.
How do you pronounce Godalming? My brain just says "goddamning" but I guess the people who live there tend to emphasise the L to make it sound less like that. It's a funny place name either way.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
With respect I'm not at all. Any plan which focuses only on increasing supply whilst doing nothing to address demand is simply magical thinking.
UK Domestic energy consumption is now back to the level it was at in the late 1980s and is continuing to fall. That is in spite of the massive changes that have occurred in society in the last 30 years and the huge growth in computers as a vital part of daily lives. Industrial energy consumption has dropped by almost half in that same period and the only ne that has steadily increased has been transport consumption.
So the idea that we have solely been focusing on increasing supply or changing the energy source is a complete myth.
Why is that? Double glazing and loft insulation? I remember growing up in my parents' house in the 1970s and the upstairs was an absolute ice block, despite the paraffin heater on the landing. (You go in that house now and it's perfectly warm even with the central heating switched off in the depths of winter.)
No idea. I assume the move to low energy lighbulbs must have had some impact. And increasing insulation etc as well. Like you I remember as a kid waking up on a winter morning and having ice on the inside of the windows.
Presumably deindustrialization has a lot to do with it.
Industrial usage has dropped by half in the same period but that doesn't really explain why domestic usage rose until around 2010 and has then dropped back to late 80s levels in the last decade. In fact since 2010 domestic consumption has dropped by around 20%. There has to be another reason for that.
I presume most things, not just light bulbs, are now more efficient.
There has been a quiet, on-going efficiency revolution going on.
With pollution, an incremental series of changes over the years has massively dropped emission of various pollutants. Similar, with electrical efficiency, a whole range of products and systems are vastly more efficient than they were.
These changes have partly been regulatory, and partly by manufacturers selling "energy efficient" as a desirable feature.
"Kamala Harris has been criticised for giggling when asked if the US should take more Ukrainian refugees. The vice-president, who is on a three-day trip to Poland and Romania, laughed when asked the question at a press conference in Warsaw alongside Andrzej Duda, the president of Poland. She looked at Mr Duda as if he should respond first, then smirked: “A friend in need is a friend indeed.” Victoria Spartz, a Ukrainian-born Republican politician, criticised Ms Harris, saying it was “a very serious situation requiring action” and is “not a laughing matter”. George Papadopoulos, Donald Trump’s former campaign aide, added: “Discussing refugees is no laughing matter. Why she laughs at this is deranged.” Ms Harris has previously been criticised for laughing at odd moments during press conferences on serious issues."
It is, I think, a nervous laugh. - I don’t blame her for it. It certainly isn’t ‘deranged’. The optics are utterly awful, though.
I really don’t think she’s good enough a leader to be the Democrat’s presidential candidate, and gives them a real problem whether or not Biden runs again.
I had such high hopes and excitement for her.
“ she’s not good enough a leader to be the Democrat’s presidential candidate “
You are right Nigel, she would be loser if gets the nomination. 😕
Yes, I was an enthusiast earlier on, too, and would have been delighted had she grown rather than diminished in stature.
Expected a more serious, quick quipped prosecutor than a giggler making nothing out of the opportunity’s on her to do list. 🤷♀️
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
With respect I'm not at all. Any plan which focuses only on increasing supply whilst doing nothing to address demand is simply magical thinking.
Those complaining about UKG not supporting Cambo also needs to bear in mind it will take significant time to develop the field into one that is producing. Not sure what sort of timescale that is, though - 5 years? 10?
I haven't even heard if HMG has got the green light from Nicola and the EssEnnPee so the situation could be moot anyway.
Nicola said Cambo is a UK decision
Whoosh. Despite the bleating from various parties on here about the SNP holding back the UK's glorious hydrocarbonised future, Nicola is stating a stone cold fact.
She also stated she was opposed to it. And when asked by Greta whether it was not the case that oil had formed part of her drive for independence said "I don't recall that" to general amusement.
I've known people with Alzheimer's who have better recollection than Nicola Sturgeon...
It is simply unacceptable for a senior lawyer such as @Keir_Starmer to so misstate the law on #WomensRights. He needs to take a look at threads from @BluskyeAllison & @legalfeminist & set the record straight.
Starmer is even more stupid than I thought, the clown does not even know what a woman is.
A transwoman *with a gender reassignment certificate* is legally a woman, surely?
1. The Equality Act 2020 S.212(1) defines a woman as "a female of any age".
2. There is no legal definition of transgender. The Equality Act -S.7(1) defines the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" and describes persons with that protected characteristic as "transsexual persons".
3. The GRA 2004 does not contain a definition of transgender either. Persons who can acquire a GR certificate are referred to as people with gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder or transsexualism.
4. Those men with a GRC can legally call themselves women for many but, note, not all purposes. But note that men with a GRC is not the same as men who claim to be transwomen. The latter legally are not women. The former is a much smaller group than the latter, insofar as the latter can even be defined let alone counted.
5. In fact, there is no legal definition or indeed common understanding of what "transwoman" means. It can mean someone with gender dysphoria to someone who simply likes dressing in womens clothes from time to time or a man with autogynephilia.
6. The Equality Act 2010 does two things: (1) it outlaws discrimination against those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (as defined under the GRA); but (2) it does permit those with a GRC to be excluded from certain spaces on the grounds of sex where it is necessary to do so in order to preserve a single sex space. See Schedule 3 sections 26-28.
Sir Keir Starmer should know all these things or should be able to get advice from lawyers specialising in this area of law or, indeed, he could read the Acts.
For him to say as loosely as he has done that "transwomen" (undefined) are women (a defined term) is not correct. The problem with such loose language is that any change in the legal definitions will necessarily have an impact on the legal rights that result from those definitions. That will mean, for instance, that women would no longer have single sex spaces. You may think this of no importance. But let me ask this. If you were a woman who had been raped and violently abused why should you run the risk of facing a man in a rape shelter simply because he claims to be a woman? Or why should you run the risk of facing a man with autogynephilia in a woman's changing room? (There are some disturbing videos of what this means in practice, I should warn you.)
It will also mean that equal pay rights, for instance, which are dependant on sex will be impacted. Discrimination on the basis of sex continues but if you alter definitions and rights without recognising this you make it impossible to describe the reality of what happens and make it legally and practically difficult to deal with it. The issue of equal pay and pay comparators is hard enough as it is without having it skewed by including men claiming to be women.
A common response to those fears is that it will be a very rare thing. But even if that is the case, when balancing the harms sometimes even rare occurences which cause massive harm should not be accepted versus perceived harm of some spaces being restricted for example.
We had our local Ukraine all-party rally (a couple of hundred people) organised by Jeremy Hunt, with the focus on refugees. I took a straw poll of whether people in Godalming would be prepared to accept 10 Ukrainians without visas as part of a national welcome to 20,000 as a start - pretty much everyone raised their hands. Obviously a biased sample of people who care about the issue, but I do think Patel or Johnson or whoever it is has been behind the curve on this. People are uneasy about chaos immigration - hiding in lorries, taking dinghies over the Channel - but they're absolutely up for a Government-sponsored programme to host large numbers. The local Council is completely swamped with offers to put people up indefinitely.
After the rally, incidentally, an elderly Tory-looking lady (I know one can't generalise, but posh coat and pearls) came up to me and said she'd never been a member of any political party but had now joined Labour "since I have come to the conclusion that the Government is corrupt". 1 person is ultimate anecdata, but I do think the Blue Wall is quietly crumbling.
Interesting way to look at the numbers. You say "20,000" and it's easy to think gosh, that's a lot of people. But then you work out that it's 1 person coming to Banff and you think gosh, what's all the fuss? Presentation is key.
Yes, that was my point. I think it would actually take 100 refugees to come to Godalming, population 21,000, (equivalent to 200,000 nationally) before most people noticed at all.
How do you pronounce Godalming? My brain just says "goddamning" but I guess the people who live there tend to emphasise the L to make it sound less like that. It's a funny place name either way.
GOD-all-ming with the stress on the first syllable
Meanwhile, the pink ball Test between India and Sri Lanka is not going to peter out into a draw. Third session of day 1, SL are 28/4 after bowling India out for 252. An entertaining day's cricket.
The tories are going to have to pivot to an explicitly anti-environmental position to head off Farage's latest auto-da-fe. He can make them do any mad shit he wants by threatening to siphon off some off their piss reeking OAP core vote. That's now been established.
What a horrible description of the elderly
Someday you may be elderly and lets hope people around you have more respect
That language may have been, well, Dura Ace, but given the voting trends of recent decades it is a pretty solid case that retaining an older voter bloc is pretty critical, for the Tories more than anyone. And Farage definitely did drive large parts of Tory policy out of their fear of his leeching a portion of their support.
Whether this positioning will be as successful for him I doubt, but 'break the Tory grip on the older vote' is pretty sound as a strategy, and expecting the Tories to respond in turn makes sense.
I am not disagreeing with the point just the horrible description of the elderly which is unnecessary
I thought Thousand Mile Stu and Dura Ace were both quite elderly themselves...
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
Yep. It’s the same with the nonsense over the Cumbrian coal mine.
I have no idea if it’s deliberate, but the Green twats have been very useful to Putin.
You voted Leave.
That really is the political betting equivalent of “your mum”.
Not really. It's meant to remind you that some of us can be in favour of things that also happen to benefit Putin, and we need to keep in mind that "usefulness to Putin" is not the only standard by which to judge things.
Also: your mum.
Do you really think Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine without Brexit?
Remember, Crimea was annexed in 2014.
No, I do not think that. I'm saying Putin believed the breakup of the EU to be in his interests and has actively supported Western politicians who advocate for that. Hence supporting leaving the EU is "useful" to Putin. That doesn't make it wrong.
I do sometimes wonder if Merkel was recruited by the KGB on one of her trips to Moscow during her GDR days.
If Russia wanted a leader to weaken Western unity they could do with someone who:
1) Allows Germany to get hooked on Russian energy 2) Allows German banks to get hooked on Russian criminal finance 3) Runs down German military capabilities 4) Emphasises German trade profits over human rights 5) Causes maximum disruption in the EU and NATO 6) Invites anyone in the Middle East to migrate to Europe
What are you talking about in point 5?
See all the aggravation about finance a decade ago - the dispute between Germany and Greece as an example.
And we could discuss how Merkel wasn't helpful to Cameron's EU negotiations.
Nor has Germany's attitude towards NATO been conducive to Western unity - see the attempts to disrupt arms shipments to Ukraine before war started as an example.
Yes, it was the latter point that I thought you might have meant, and I wanted to remind you that Merkel is no longer Germany's leader.
I think you're being overly harsh overall, but it's certain that she made some big errors. The whole nuclear power one stands out to as particularly egregious. I can find rationalisations for many mistakes, but I have never been able to wrap my head around that thinking.
Merkel might no longer lead Germany but her legacy continues until it is changed - which it seems it now is being.
"JK Rowling slams Keir Starmer after Labour leader says ‘trans women are women’, as Harry Potter author says the party can 'no longer be counted on to defend women’s rights'"
I'm slightly and happily shocked that Americans have SUCH a positive view of France.
Many Americans thoughts of France will be of it as a vacation destination rather than political judgement on its government. A bit like how a British person's views of Tanzania will be clueless about its policy position but be aware it is great for safari.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
Yep. It’s the same with the nonsense over the Cumbrian coal mine.
I have no idea if it’s deliberate, but the Green twats have been very useful to Putin.
You voted Leave.
That really is the political betting equivalent of “your mum”.
Not really. It's meant to remind you that some of us can be in favour of things that also happen to benefit Putin, and we need to keep in mind that "usefulness to Putin" is not the only standard by which to judge things.
Also: your mum.
Do you really think Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine without Brexit?
Remember, Crimea was annexed in 2014.
No, I do not think that. I'm saying Putin believed the breakup of the EU to be in his interests and has actively supported Western politicians who advocate for that. Hence supporting leaving the EU is "useful" to Putin. That doesn't make it wrong.
I do sometimes wonder if Merkel was recruited by the KGB on one of her trips to Moscow during her GDR days.
If Russia wanted a leader to weaken Western unity they could do with someone who:
1) Allows Germany to get hooked on Russian energy 2) Allows German banks to get hooked on Russian criminal finance 3) Runs down German military capabilities 4) Emphasises German trade profits over human rights 5) Causes maximum disruption in the EU and NATO 6) Invites anyone in the Middle East to migrate to Europe
And there is the precedent of Gerhard Schroeder of course.
As usual the pb.com braintrust hasn't really paid attention. Operation Krautwickel began much earlier. It was the first grand coalition under Kiesinger that began talking to the evil Soviets in the late sixties. Early BLM mole Herbert Frahm, famous for introducing the kneefall into the world of political virtue signalling (being bought off with a nobel peace prize), ultimately caved in. Once he was taken out of the picture by the Guillaume gambit, his successor ordered Thyssen to supply the pipes, Erich sent some engineering crews to assemble the whole shebang, and from that point on everything unravelled as planned. Germany - hooked on Russian gas for 45 years running - was isolated from "the west", NATO was hollowed out from within and then disbanded, the Forces of Good ended the cold war with their capitulation because the Soviets made some promises they later reneged on, and a look at the map today shows us Mexico and Canada as Warshaw pact members with Soviet missiles stationed in Alberta and Yucatan. Just like Valentin Falin dreamed it all up 1965.
I thought Saturday morning dogs meant Romford, Crayford or in former times Hackney and Harringay but @IanB2 reminds me it can, for one weekend, mean Cruft's.
Not sure about the track at Crufts and whether it favours wide runners or not so I'll stick to different animals running on an artificial surface. The weekend before Cheltenham is one of the poorest of the year in quality terms as all the good horses are heading to Prestbury Park but for Flat racing fans it's the first sign of the coming of spring - the Lincoln is just a fortnight away.
A very good all-weather card at Wolverhampton and a fair card at Lingfield and the Stodge Saturday Patent (1 winner and a near miss last weekend) returns to annoy and irritate. My three with less chance of winning than an SWP candidate in the City of London Corporation election are:
Stick a 1-point win patent on those or find something better to do with your cash, whether hard-earned or otherwise (I don't judge).
I am really not so good when it comes into the flat season Stodge, I will have to defer to you and likely not tip as often. I think it’s because I haven’t followed the horses enough to know the quality in the field, and there is good and bad Lane draws like they have in Olympic finals too (though that’s normally based on semi final). It’s a whole different thing I think of that makes sense.
I much prefer the jumps and do not bet as often on the flat , if I do it is always 1m2f upwards
Stock had a crowd of 100 or more anonymous masked & hooded demonstrators turn up on the University Open Day to intimate her, and call for her sacking.
"Forced out" or "Intimidated out" is quite a reasonable interpretation, I'd suggest.
It's not something that a 50 year old female academic should have to face, just for disagreeing with someone's opinion and expressing that disagreement publicly.
What about 40 year old or 30 year old female academics?
Emma Barnett has conducted a series of interviews with figures in this 'debate' on Woman's Hour, most recently Maya Forstater and Stock a few weeks ago. Barnett is pretty good at picking away at inconvenient truths for all the interviewees, particularly since I suspect her sympathies tend to be more in one direction.
I listened to the Stock interview while driving on the M8 and may have missed some of the nuance because I was duelling with an arsehole in a white van trying to undertake me, but the gist of it seemed to be that gender self identification was a 'fiction' compared to the necessary and immutable truth of sex, and people who had their feelings hurt by this were snowflakes (I paraphrase). Otoh Barnett pointed out to her that she had left her employer by choice and said university had made statements supporting her, Stock said she had 'felt' unsupported and under threat. Apparently some feelings are more important than others.
I'd say that a lot of the players in this (on both sides) have got high on their own supply of unfamiliar attention, and find it difficult to take that much offered piece of advice to step away from the keyboard.
Nah rubbish. Those arguing for the biological basis for sex are not threatening the transgender community. Indeed many of them are people who have stood solidly behind minorities in that past and continue to do so. They are in no way being abusive towards the transgender community, they are simply putting forward a rational argument on a specific detail. They are certainly not trying to deprive them of a living or drive them out of their jobs.
Those attacking Stock for her views are doing all these things up to and including the threat of physical violence. To the extent that the police warned her to stay away from the University campus and advised her to get bodyguards.
Equating the two as you try to do is dishonest in the extreme.
"Those arguing for the biological basis for sex are not threatening the transgender community."
Depends - as so often - on tone and context.
Take the much profiled "Only women have a cervix".
If you're sat around just generally chewing the fat about body parts and biology - as per any normal Saturday - there is nothing wrong whatsoever with this statement. Because it's true. Or rather it's as close to being true as makes no difference. It's fine and dandy and most certainly not transphobic.
But it isn't *completely* true because there are many thousands of people - and that's just in the UK - who were born female but have transitioned to male. They have a certificate to prove this. They are therefore men. Legally they are. This is a fact. As much of a fact as that they were born female.
Now back to our (usually fine and dandy) statement that "Only women have a cervix" - if you come bowling in with this as a certain and perfect 100% fact in the context of the transgender debate what you are saying (deliberately) is that all those people referred to above, despite having gone through the F to M gender transition process and become men are actually NOT men. They are women. Because they have a cervix. Biology is destiny.
So the 'cervix' statement when delivered in this tone and context looks rather different, doesn't it? It's now nullifying the identity of trans people and effectively saying the whole notion of gender transition is a pretendy nonsense. And this IS transphobic. Or at least it very likely is.
As someone on the receiving end of writ threats as an occupational hazard, it is not my inclination to sue for defamation, this internet meme that I advised the Kremlin is clearly defamatory, particularly so in the contemporary context. The only advice I gave them was unpaid, in public and it was to free Alexi Navalny and stop locking up political opponents. I’m proud of that advice and would tell them the same today.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
Yep. It’s the same with the nonsense over the Cumbrian coal mine.
I have no idea if it’s deliberate, but the Green twats have been very useful to Putin.
You voted Leave.
That really is the political betting equivalent of “your mum”.
Not really. It's meant to remind you that some of us can be in favour of things that also happen to benefit Putin, and we need to keep in mind that "usefulness to Putin" is not the only standard by which to judge things.
Also: your mum.
Do you really think Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine without Brexit?
Remember, Crimea was annexed in 2014.
No, I do not think that. I'm saying Putin believed the breakup of the EU to be in his interests and has actively supported Western politicians who advocate for that. Hence supporting leaving the EU is "useful" to Putin. That doesn't make it wrong.
I do sometimes wonder if Merkel was recruited by the KGB on one of her trips to Moscow during her GDR days.
If Russia wanted a leader to weaken Western unity they could do with someone who:
1) Allows Germany to get hooked on Russian energy 2) Allows German banks to get hooked on Russian criminal finance 3) Runs down German military capabilities 4) Emphasises German trade profits over human rights 5) Causes maximum disruption in the EU and NATO 6) Invites anyone in the Middle East to migrate to Europe
And there is the precedent of Gerhard Schroeder of course.
As usual the pb.com braintrust hasn't really paid attention. Operation Krautwickel began much earlier. It was the first grand coalition under Kiesinger that began talking to the evil Soviets in the late sixties. Early BLM mole Herbert Frahm, famous for introducing the kneefall into the world of political virtue signalling (being bought off with a nobel peace prize), ultimately caved in. Once he was taken out of the picture by the Guillaume gambit, his successor ordered Thyssen to supply the pipes, Erich sent some engineering crews to assemble the whole shebang, and from that point on everything unravelled as planned. Germany - hooked on Russian gas for 45 years running - was isolated from "the west", NATO was hollowed out from within and then disbanded, the Forces of Good ended the cold war with their capitulation because the Soviets made some promises they later reneged on, and a look at the map today shows us Mexico and Canada as Warshaw pact members with Soviet missiles stationed in Alberta and Yucatan. Just like Valentin Falin dreamed it all up 1965.
Wow, as a way of showing how superificial I was being that is an impressive effort. At the risk of being even more foolish it seems that German policy was heavily influenced by their approach to France and then the EU. Basically, they wanted their economies to become so integrated that any further war between them was not only inconceivable but impractical. They have tried the same with Russia, leading the charge to integrate them into the world economy and, in particular, with the German economy.
What we have seen in the last week looks like a fairly radical departure from a very long term strategy from outside. Would you agree?
Stock had a crowd of 100 or more anonymous masked & hooded demonstrators turn up on the University Open Day to intimate her, and call for her sacking.
"Forced out" or "Intimidated out" is quite a reasonable interpretation, I'd suggest.
It's not something that a 50 year old female academic should have to face, just for disagreeing with someone's opinion and expressing that disagreement publicly.
What about 40 year old or 30 year old female academics?
Emma Barnett has conducted a series of interviews with figures in this 'debate' on Woman's Hour, most recently Maya Forstater and Stock a few weeks ago. Barnett is pretty good at picking away at inconvenient truths for all the interviewees, particularly since I suspect her sympathies tend to be more in one direction.
I listened to the Stock interview while driving on the M8 and may have missed some of the nuance because I was duelling with an arsehole in a white van trying to undertake me, but the gist of it seemed to be that gender self identification was a 'fiction' compared to the necessary and immutable truth of sex, and people who had their feelings hurt by this were snowflakes (I paraphrase). Otoh Barnett pointed out to her that she had left her employer by choice and said university had made statements supporting her, Stock said she had 'felt' unsupported and under threat. Apparently some feelings are more important than others.
I'd say that a lot of the players in this (on both sides) have got high on their own supply of unfamiliar attention, and find it difficult to take that much offered piece of advice to step away from the keyboard.
Nah rubbish. Those arguing for the biological basis for sex are not threatening the transgender community. Indeed many of them are people who have stood solidly behind minorities in that past and continue to do so. They are in no way being abusive towards the transgender community, they are simply putting forward a rational argument on a specific detail. They are certainly not trying to deprive them of a living or drive them out of their jobs.
Those attacking Stock for her views are doing all these things up to and including the threat of physical violence. To the extent that the police warned her to stay away from the University campus and advised her to get bodyguards.
Equating the two as you try to do is dishonest in the extreme.
"Those arguing for the biological basis for sex are not threatening the transgender community."
Depends - as so often - on tone and context.
Take the much profiled "Only women have a cervix".
If you're sat around just generally chewing the fat about body parts and biology - as per any normal Saturday - there is nothing wrong whatsoever with this statement. Because it's true. Or rather it's as close to being true as makes no difference. It's fine and dandy and most certainly not transphobic.
But it isn't *completely* true because there are many thousands of people - and that's just in the UK - who were born female but have transitioned to male. They have a certificate to prove this. They are therefore men. Legally they are. This is a fact. As much of a fact as that they were born female.
Now back to our (usually fine and dandy) statement that "Only women have a cervix" - if you come bowling in with this as a certain and perfect 100% fact in the context of the transgender debate what you are saying (deliberately) is that all those people referred to above, despite having gone through the F to M gender transition process and become men are actually NOT men. They are women. Because they have a cervix. Biology is destiny.
So the 'cervix' statement when delivered in this tone and context looks rather different, doesn't it? It's now nullifying the identity of trans people and effectively saying the whole notion of gender transition is a pretendy nonsense. And this IS transphobic. Or at least it very likely is.
Nope. It is not 'threatening' which is the precise word I used. It may be wrong but it is not in any way a threat to someone. Compare that with the police having to advise Stock not to go to campus because they could not guarantee her safety. If you can't see the difference then you, like our brain deficient Scottish colleague, are very much part of the problem.
Stock had a crowd of 100 or more anonymous masked & hooded demonstrators turn up on the University Open Day to intimate her, and call for her sacking.
"Forced out" or "Intimidated out" is quite a reasonable interpretation, I'd suggest.
It's not something that a 50 year old female academic should have to face, just for disagreeing with someone's opinion and expressing that disagreement publicly.
What about 40 year old or 30 year old female academics?
Emma Barnett has conducted a series of interviews with figures in this 'debate' on Woman's Hour, most recently Maya Forstater and Stock a few weeks ago. Barnett is pretty good at picking away at inconvenient truths for all the interviewees, particularly since I suspect her sympathies tend to be more in one direction.
I listened to the Stock interview while driving on the M8 and may have missed some of the nuance because I was duelling with an arsehole in a white van trying to undertake me, but the gist of it seemed to be that gender self identification was a 'fiction' compared to the necessary and immutable truth of sex, and people who had their feelings hurt by this were snowflakes (I paraphrase). Otoh Barnett pointed out to her that she had left her employer by choice and said university had made statements supporting her, Stock said she had 'felt' unsupported and under threat. Apparently some feelings are more important than others.
I'd say that a lot of the players in this (on both sides) have got high on their own supply of unfamiliar attention, and find it difficult to take that much offered piece of advice to step away from the keyboard.
Nah rubbish. Those arguing for the biological basis for sex are not threatening the transgender community. Indeed many of them are people who have stood solidly behind minorities in that past and continue to do so. They are in no way being abusive towards the transgender community, they are simply putting forward a rational argument on a specific detail. They are certainly not trying to deprive them of a living or drive them out of their jobs.
Those attacking Stock for her views are doing all these things up to and including the threat of physical violence. To the extent that the police warned her to stay away from the University campus and advised her to get bodyguards.
Equating the two as you try to do is dishonest in the extreme.
"Those arguing for the biological basis for sex are not threatening the transgender community."
Depends - as so often - on tone and context.
Take the much profiled "Only women have a cervix".
If you're sat around just generally chewing the fat about body parts and biology - as per any normal Saturday - there is nothing wrong whatsoever with this statement. Because it's true. Or rather it's as close to being true as makes no difference. It's fine and dandy and most certainly not transphobic.
But it isn't *completely* true because there are many thousands of people - and that's just in the UK - who were born female but have transitioned to male. They have a certificate to prove this. They are therefore men. Legally they are. This is a fact. As much of a fact as that they were born female.
Now back to our (usually fine and dandy) statement that "Only women have a cervix" - if you come bowling in with this as a certain and perfect 100% fact in the context of the transgender debate what you are saying (deliberately) is that all those people referred to above, despite having gone through the F to M gender transition process and become men are actually NOT men. They are women. Because they have a cervix. Biology is destiny.
So the 'cervix' statement when delivered in this tone and context looks rather different, doesn't it? It's now nullifying the identity of trans people and effectively saying the whole notion of gender transition is a pretendy nonsense. And this IS transphobic. Or at least it very likely is.
Some whataboutery bollox in there, you are and always will be the sex you are born , you can pretend , get bits chopped off , dress differently and think what you like , but the facts remain your sex has not changed.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
With respect I'm not at all. Any plan which focuses only on increasing supply whilst doing nothing to address demand is simply magical thinking.
UK Domestic energy consumption is now back to the level it was at in the late 1980s and is continuing to fall. That is in spite of the massive changes that have occurred in society in the last 30 years and the huge growth in computers as a vital part of daily lives. Industrial energy consumption has dropped by almost half in that same period and the only ne that has steadily increased has been transport consumption.
So the idea that we have solely been focusing on increasing supply or changing the energy source is a complete myth.
Why is that? Double glazing and loft insulation? I remember growing up in my parents' house in the 1970s and the upstairs was an absolute ice block, despite the paraffin heater on the landing. (You go in that house now and it's perfectly warm even with the central heating switched off in the depths of winter.)
No idea. I assume the move to low energy lighbulbs must have had some impact. And increasing insulation etc as well. Like you I remember as a kid waking up on a winter morning and having ice on the inside of the windows.
Presumably deindustrialization has a lot to do with it.
Industrial usage has dropped by half in the same period but that doesn't really explain why domestic usage rose until around 2010 and has then dropped back to late 80s levels in the last decade. In fact since 2010 domestic consumption has dropped by around 20%. There has to be another reason for that.
Lighting is a big part of it I think. We've gone from having 100W or 60W bulbs to LEDs running on 3W. Also despite our lives seemingly filled with ever more gadgets - the power draw of modern consumer products is way down on what it was. Even allowing for many people having much bigger TV screens - they are so much more efficient than the old CRTs many of us grew up with. I think a 24" CRT drew about 150W compared to about 40 for an LED one.
Stock had a crowd of 100 or more anonymous masked & hooded demonstrators turn up on the University Open Day to intimate her, and call for her sacking.
"Forced out" or "Intimidated out" is quite a reasonable interpretation, I'd suggest.
It's not something that a 50 year old female academic should have to face, just for disagreeing with someone's opinion and expressing that disagreement publicly.
What about 40 year old or 30 year old female academics?
Emma Barnett has conducted a series of interviews with figures in this 'debate' on Woman's Hour, most recently Maya Forstater and Stock a few weeks ago. Barnett is pretty good at picking away at inconvenient truths for all the interviewees, particularly since I suspect her sympathies tend to be more in one direction.
I listened to the Stock interview while driving on the M8 and may have missed some of the nuance because I was duelling with an arsehole in a white van trying to undertake me, but the gist of it seemed to be that gender self identification was a 'fiction' compared to the necessary and immutable truth of sex, and people who had their feelings hurt by this were snowflakes (I paraphrase). Otoh Barnett pointed out to her that she had left her employer by choice and said university had made statements supporting her, Stock said she had 'felt' unsupported and under threat. Apparently some feelings are more important than others.
I'd say that a lot of the players in this (on both sides) have got high on their own supply of unfamiliar attention, and find it difficult to take that much offered piece of advice to step away from the keyboard.
Nah rubbish. Those arguing for the biological basis for sex are not threatening the transgender community. Indeed many of them are people who have stood solidly behind minorities in that past and continue to do so. They are in no way being abusive towards the transgender community, they are simply putting forward a rational argument on a specific detail. They are certainly not trying to deprive them of a living or drive them out of their jobs.
Those attacking Stock for her views are doing all these things up to and including the threat of physical violence. To the extent that the police warned her to stay away from the University campus and advised her to get bodyguards.
Equating the two as you try to do is dishonest in the extreme.
"Those arguing for the biological basis for sex are not threatening the transgender community."
Depends - as so often - on tone and context.
Take the much profiled "Only women have a cervix".
If you're sat around just generally chewing the fat about body parts and biology - as per any normal Saturday - there is nothing wrong whatsoever with this statement. Because it's true. Or rather it's as close to being true as makes no difference. It's fine and dandy and most certainly not transphobic.
But it isn't *completely* true because there are many thousands of people - and that's just in the UK - who were born female but have transitioned to male. They have a certificate to prove this. They are therefore men. Legally they are. This is a fact. As much of a fact as that they were born female.
Now back to our (usually fine and dandy) statement that "Only women have a cervix" - if you come bowling in with this as a certain and perfect 100% fact in the context of the transgender debate what you are saying (deliberately) is that all those people referred to above, despite having gone through the F to M gender transition process and become men are actually NOT men. They are women. Because they have a cervix. Biology is destiny.
So the 'cervix' statement when delivered in this tone and context looks rather different, doesn't it? It's now nullifying the identity of trans people and effectively saying the whole notion of gender transition is a pretendy nonsense. And this IS transphobic. Or at least it very likely is.
We're on the brink of World War 3, and we're still discussing whether or not women can have penises.
I suspect these two things are more linked than you might think. In terms of Maslow's pyramid of important stuff going on, this one is about as far removed from the basic necessities of life (food, security, a roof over your head) as you can get. The sort of thing you only really debate when absolutely everything else is settled.
However, in focusing on things like the trans issue, we have forgotten to focus on the important things. Food, security, a roof over our heads. All of which may be gone very soon. Truly fiddling while Rome burns.
We had our local Ukraine all-party rally (a couple of hundred people) organised by Jeremy Hunt, with the focus on refugees. I took a straw poll of whether people in Godalming would be prepared to accept 10 Ukrainians without visas as part of a national welcome to 20,000 as a start - pretty much everyone raised their hands. Obviously a biased sample of people who care about the issue, but I do think Patel or Johnson or whoever it is has been behind the curve on this. People are uneasy about chaos immigration - hiding in lorries, taking dinghies over the Channel - but they're absolutely up for a Government-sponsored programme to host large numbers. The local Council is completely swamped with offers to put people up indefinitely.
After the rally, incidentally, an elderly Tory-looking lady (I know one can't generalise, but posh coat and pearls) came up to me and said she'd never been a member of any political party but had now joined Labour "since I have come to the conclusion that the Government is corrupt". 1 person is ultimate anecdata, but I do think the Blue Wall is quietly crumbling.
Interesting way to look at the numbers. You say "20,000" and it's easy to think gosh, that's a lot of people. But then you work out that it's 1 person coming to Banff and you think gosh, what's all the fuss? Presentation is key.
Yes, that was my point. I think it would actually take 100 refugees to come to Godalming, population 21,000, (equivalent to 200,000 nationally) before most people noticed at all.
How do you pronounce Godalming? My brain just says "goddamning" but I guess the people who live there tend to emphasise the L to make it sound less like that. It's a funny place name either way.
GOD-all-ming with the stress on the first syllable
Foreigners (I don't mean Ukrainians, just anyone from anywhere else) tend to say godALming. But John is right.
We had our local Ukraine all-party rally (a couple of hundred people) organised by Jeremy Hunt, with the focus on refugees. I took a straw poll of whether people in Godalming would be prepared to accept 10 Ukrainians without visas as part of a national welcome to 20,000 as a start - pretty much everyone raised their hands. Obviously a biased sample of people who care about the issue, but I do think Patel or Johnson or whoever it is has been behind the curve on this. People are uneasy about chaos immigration - hiding in lorries, taking dinghies over the Channel - but they're absolutely up for a Government-sponsored programme to host large numbers. The local Council is completely swamped with offers to put people up indefinitely.
After the rally, incidentally, an elderly Tory-looking lady (I know one can't generalise, but posh coat and pearls) came up to me and said she'd never been a member of any political party but had now joined Labour "since I have come to the conclusion that the Government is corrupt". 1 person is ultimate anecdata, but I do think the Blue Wall is quietly crumbling.
Interesting way to look at the numbers. You say "20,000" and it's easy to think gosh, that's a lot of people. But then you work out that it's 1 person coming to Banff and you think gosh, what's all the fuss? Presentation is key.
Yes, that was my point. I think it would actually take 100 refugees to come to Godalming, population 21,000, (equivalent to 200,000 nationally) before most people noticed at all.
How do you pronounce Godalming? My brain just says "goddamning" but I guess the people who live there tend to emphasise the L to make it sound less like that. It's a funny place name either way.
GOD-all-ming with the stress on the first syllable
Foreigners (I don't mean Ukrainians, just anyone from anywhere else) tend to say godALming. But John is right.
I say godALming to take the piss, to be honest. A bit like how I say Isle of Widget.
The TV commentators suggested a little while ago that they would be trying to get to a lead of 280. With Bairstow and Stokes in now they either get there in about the next 5 overs, or they both get out and England declare anyway.
This is interesting given they likely had some sort of authorisation ?
Just watched Russia’s main political talk show with notorious propagandist Soloviev (Mar 9). Couldn’t believe my ears. Two hardcore pro-Putin guests - Shaknazarov and Bagdasarov - acknowledged the impact of sanctions, military failures, and called for an end to the invasion. https://twitter.com/MaximAlyukov/status/1502337993012658177
The thread seems like it's laying the groundwork for a Russian climbdown. I suspect that we'll go back to the status quo ante bellum minus some of the Russian reserves being diverted to rebuilding Ukraine. Putin is realising how badly he miscalculated.
Yes, they don't appear to be calling for withdrawal, but for declaring victory by solidifying the grip on the Donbas, and settling for Ukrainian neutrality without further advances. Which is pretty much what most of us have been suggesting is the outline of a plausible settlement, and they could probably have got without a war, so it'd certainly count as a deserved disaster for Putin.
At the same time, though, the military do seem to be making some progress now, and the air strikes are reaching out further into the west. The Ukrainian successes have an anecdotal flavour, while they're losing ground a few km a day. It's hard to read.
This guy publishes quite a good situation map each day. Quite good level of detail too, down to individual units being identified:
In summary it looks as if the Russian encirclement of Kyiv has stalled, and even been reversed in places, with significant Ukranian counterattacks to the east of the city. The Russians don't seem to have made progress on other bits of the northern front.
On the Southern front there are seems more Russian gains on the Donbas area, and an attempt to consolidate south of the Dneiper, with Mariopol being besieged rather than assaulted. The attack from land and sea on Odesa still hasn't materialised. Clearly logistics remain a major problem everywhere. Food is running out in Kherson for civilians as well as occupation troops.
I think the Russian war aims have been reduced to expanding in the Donbas and controlling the Kherson Oblast and Azov Coast. That is something they could paint as victory, but a ceasefire on that basis is not likely to be acceptable to Ukraine.
I’m not sure where Nick is getting his view from that the Russians are slowly winning this. You highlighted the piece from Jomini whose analysis is that the Russians are not really getting anywhere and that seems to be backed up by most other views. Russian equipment losses are running at over 3x Ukrainian according to Oryx.
Who honestly knows. @viewcode alerted us a while ago to this guys youtube commentry, which at face value seems very convincing.
Also there is Konstantin Kisin of Triggernometry. He concluded on Wednesday that the situation is basically hopeless and Ukraine should pretty much stop fighting; as Russia will just resort to using increasingly powerful bombs to pulverise Ukraine, in the face of difficulties with the ground war.
Of course these are just youtube talking heads. But the overriding analysis is that Russia is gradually moving towards an encirclement of and siege of Kiev by way of brutal, heavy bombardment.
Remember Ukraine is a big country and we are only 16 days in.
What matters is that Russia has overwhelming military force.
What is your actual evidence for this, though? Beyond claims about the theoretical strength of Russian conventional forces?
If you’re talking about their nuclear capability then sure, although quite how relevant that is for taking and holding Ukraine is debatable. But in terms of the practical strength of the conventional forces available to them on Ukraine, why are you convinced?
The siege of Mariupol is rather compelling evidence. If the Ukrainians had the capability they would surely have launched a major attempt to lift the siege.
Similarly, the Russians have been able to advance on Kyiv from two directions, and the advance from the east has been over a considerable distance given reported problems with Russian logistics. Again, given the evidence being presented of poor morale, poor communications, deficient tactics, etc, the only explanation for such an advance is overwhelming strength.
It might be that, over time, Ukraine is able to inflict losses that erode this strength, but it does not do any good to deny the evidence of overall Russian military superiority over the Ukrainians at present.
Certainly the Russians have the advantage in heavy weaponry, which is why the Ukranians are avoiding set piece battles and waging partisan type attritional warfare, and dug in positions around cities.
The decisive question is how long each side can sustain the fight. For the Ukranians it is existential, so like the Soviets in 1941 they will fight on. The Russians meanwhile have limited capacity to replace losses and are being economically strangled so need a shorter war.
A lot of Ukrainian cities will be a wasteland afterwards, but it likely will become stalemate in the months ahead, and ultimately Russian defeat.
My educated guesswork says Russia will get something it can present as a “win”. Either a neutralised (and flattened) Ukraine plus bits of the country absorbed into Russia OR a new Russia-friendly regime in Kyiv. Russia is too big and this war is too existential for Putin. They HAVE to win so they will
But the “victory” will be illusory. Russia will bleed out economically and Ukraine will become a new Afghanistan yet worse
60% chance of this?
20% chance Ukraine wins, Putin goes
15% chance of a long Korea type stalemate, Ukraine eventually divided
4% chance nuclear/chemical or other apocalypse drags in the world and maybe kills us all
1% chance the aliens intervene and stop it
Your last two options have far too high a probability assigned. Biden has a cool head and won’t get dragged in. And the aliens aren’t gonna stop shit, not like they’ve done anything to stop human wars up to now.
The last two are, of course, a bit of a joke. The aliens will probably just laugh and a strategic nuclear exchange is most unlikely (0.1%? Still enough to jangle the nerves)
But there is a higher chance of the war spreading across Europe/MENA and becoming quite apocalyptic. Cf Serbia, Syria
5%?
History doesn’t repeat but it does rhyme. High food and energy prices is going to have consequences somewhere. Arab Spring 2.0 or something else?
Syria and Libya in particular, Putin seems to be leaving a bit of a vacuum. Probably we’ll be hearing a lot about ISIS again before the end of the year. What a mess.
I met an old friend yesterday, for a drink. Haven’t seen him since covid kicked off
He has gone from total skepticism to complete conviction that we are being visited by aliens
He’s an interesting case because he’s eccentric, and sometimes prone to mad beliefs - so I should dismiss his views? And yet he is also highly intelligent and has the kind of open mind that sometimes sees things no one else can. So I might believe him?
At the moment I’m in a more skeptical mood. A mixture of America post plague madness and a conspiracy to freak the Chinese seems more likely than alien probes/craft
But I’m not ruling out Martians entirely
You would do yourself a favour if you stopped going to these weird cult meetings.
Is the alien-visitation stuff still a thing? I thought it was now accepted that that curious and brief phenomenon of 2021 was simply a group of UFOlogists cleverly playing the media like a fiddle.
Not so. There is still much debate swirling. A taste
"In Oregon, a man said his health deteriorated after a glowing blue orb passed through his body. A family in California reported strange lights and a gray figure with spindly legs in their orchard. A werewolf-like creature allegedly prowled around homes in suburban Virginia.
"All three incidents were probed as part of a secret Pentagon program investigating UFOs. The program, contracted by the Defense Intelligence Agency, plumbed the connection between the flying objects and the paranormal for two years, according to the men who ran it.
"It was the beginning of a years-long effort by UFO advocates that eventually led to Congress passing legislation in December 2021 ordering the Pentagon to spend the next four years investigating unidentified flying objects."
TL;DR some ufologists are crazy but there is still a mystery here:
I'm slightly and happily shocked that Americans have SUCH a positive view of France.
Many Americans thoughts of France will be of it as a vacation destination rather than political judgement on its government. A bit like how a British person's views of Tanzania will be clueless about its policy position but be aware it is great for safari.
There is also France helping George Washington turf out those perfidious British.
I'm slightly and happily shocked that Americans have SUCH a positive view of France.
Many Americans thoughts of France will be of it as a vacation destination rather than political judgement on its government. A bit like how a British person's views of Tanzania will be clueless about its policy position but be aware it is great for safari.
There is also France helping George Washington turf out those perfidious British.
I'm slightly and happily shocked that Americans have SUCH a positive view of France.
Many Americans thoughts of France will be of it as a vacation destination rather than political judgement on its government. A bit like how a British person's views of Tanzania will be clueless about its policy position but be aware it is great for safari.
There is also France helping George Washington turf out those perfidious British.
Ah, the Gilbert du Motier connection.
They also got a nice statue from the French. Perhaps the most important symbol in the world (although perhaps that's mainlyjust due to its name).
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
Yep. It’s the same with the nonsense over the Cumbrian coal mine.
I have no idea if it’s deliberate, but the Green twats have been very useful to Putin.
You voted Leave.
That really is the political betting equivalent of “your mum”.
Not really. It's meant to remind you that some of us can be in favour of things that also happen to benefit Putin, and we need to keep in mind that "usefulness to Putin" is not the only standard by which to judge things.
Also: your mum.
Do you really think Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine without Brexit?
Remember, Crimea was annexed in 2014.
No, I do not think that. I'm saying Putin believed the breakup of the EU to be in his interests and has actively supported Western politicians who advocate for that. Hence supporting leaving the EU is "useful" to Putin. That doesn't make it wrong.
I do sometimes wonder if Merkel was recruited by the KGB on one of her trips to Moscow during her GDR days.
If Russia wanted a leader to weaken Western unity they could do with someone who:
1) Allows Germany to get hooked on Russian energy 2) Allows German banks to get hooked on Russian criminal finance 3) Runs down German military capabilities 4) Emphasises German trade profits over human rights 5) Causes maximum disruption in the EU and NATO 6) Invites anyone in the Middle East to migrate to Europe
And there is the precedent of Gerhard Schroeder of course.
As usual the pb.com braintrust hasn't really paid attention. Operation Krautwickel began much earlier. It was the first grand coalition under Kiesinger that began talking to the evil Soviets in the late sixties. Early BLM mole Herbert Frahm, famous for introducing the kneefall into the world of political virtue signalling (being bought off with a nobel peace prize), ultimately caved in. Once he was taken out of the picture by the Guillaume gambit, his successor ordered Thyssen to supply the pipes, Erich sent some engineering crews to assemble the whole shebang, and from that point on everything unravelled as planned. Germany - hooked on Russian gas for 45 years running - was isolated from "the west", NATO was hollowed out from within and then disbanded, the Forces of Good ended the cold war with their capitulation because the Soviets made some promises they later reneged on, and a look at the map today shows us Mexico and Canada as Warshaw pact members with Soviet missiles stationed in Alberta and Yucatan. Just like Valentin Falin dreamed it all up 1965.
Wow, as a way of showing how superificial I was being that is an impressive effort. At the risk of being even more foolish it seems that German policy was heavily influenced by their approach to France and then the EU. Basically, they wanted their economies to become so integrated that any further war between them was not only inconceivable but impractical. They have tried the same with Russia, leading the charge to integrate them into the world economy and, in particular, with the German economy.
What we have seen in the last week looks like a fairly radical departure from a very long term strategy from outside. Would you agree?
Radical but not irreversable. People sometimes forget how quickly things can change. The whole world in general, and Russia in particular, may look completely different in a couple of years. Long term strategies from 1986 looked quite outdated in 1989.
Local sources from Melitopol reported that this morning, during the rally that demanded to release the city's mayor, the leader of the protest rallies in Melitopol, Olha Haisumova, was captured too. https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1502656773802663942
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
Yep. It’s the same with the nonsense over the Cumbrian coal mine.
I have no idea if it’s deliberate, but the Green twats have been very useful to Putin.
You voted Leave.
That really is the political betting equivalent of “your mum”.
Not really. It's meant to remind you that some of us can be in favour of things that also happen to benefit Putin, and we need to keep in mind that "usefulness to Putin" is not the only standard by which to judge things.
Also: your mum.
Do you really think Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine without Brexit?
Remember, Crimea was annexed in 2014.
No, I do not think that. I'm saying Putin believed the breakup of the EU to be in his interests and has actively supported Western politicians who advocate for that. Hence supporting leaving the EU is "useful" to Putin. That doesn't make it wrong.
I do sometimes wonder if Merkel was recruited by the KGB on one of her trips to Moscow during her GDR days.
If Russia wanted a leader to weaken Western unity they could do with someone who:
1) Allows Germany to get hooked on Russian energy 2) Allows German banks to get hooked on Russian criminal finance 3) Runs down German military capabilities 4) Emphasises German trade profits over human rights 5) Causes maximum disruption in the EU and NATO 6) Invites anyone in the Middle East to migrate to Europe
And there is the precedent of Gerhard Schroeder of course.
As usual the pb.com braintrust hasn't really paid attention. Operation Krautwickel began much earlier. It was the first grand coalition under Kiesinger that began talking to the evil Soviets in the late sixties. Early BLM mole Herbert Frahm, famous for introducing the kneefall into the world of political virtue signalling (being bought off with a nobel peace prize), ultimately caved in. Once he was taken out of the picture by the Guillaume gambit, his successor ordered Thyssen to supply the pipes, Erich sent some engineering crews to assemble the whole shebang, and from that point on everything unravelled as planned. Germany - hooked on Russian gas for 45 years running - was isolated from "the west", NATO was hollowed out from within and then disbanded, the Forces of Good ended the cold war with their capitulation because the Soviets made some promises they later reneged on, and a look at the map today shows us Mexico and Canada as Warshaw pact members with Soviet missiles stationed in Alberta and Yucatan. Just like Valentin Falin dreamed it all up 1965.
Wow, as a way of showing how superificial I was being that is an impressive effort. At the risk of being even more foolish it seems that German policy was heavily influenced by their approach to France and then the EU. Basically, they wanted their economies to become so integrated that any further war between them was not only inconceivable but impractical. They have tried the same with Russia, leading the charge to integrate them into the world economy and, in particular, with the German economy.
What we have seen in the last week looks like a fairly radical departure from a very long term strategy from outside. Would you agree?
Radical but not irreversable. People sometimes forget how quickly things can change. The whole world in general, and Russia in particular, may look completely different in a couple of years. Long term strategies from 1986 looked quite outdated in 1989.
That's nothing. On 1st February this year Russia was thought to have the third most powerful army in the world.
We Need to Wean Ourselves of Foreign Fuels! How? By ditching the Green Crap which is aiming to wean us off fossil fuels. Thereby making petrol and energy cheaper so that we can continue to use exactly the same amount.
You are missing the point
We will need oil and gas for years to come and the more we produce ourselves during the transition period the more secure our energy supply is and we do not import the same oil and gas we can produce, from Russia and elsewhere
It is a simple proposition that should receive widespread popular support post this war
With respect I'm not at all. Any plan which focuses only on increasing supply whilst doing nothing to address demand is simply magical thinking.
This comment always surprises me. We have been addressing demand reduction successfully literally for decades, and it is well known in the public domain.
Here are the numbers for 2000 to 2020 for households (despite soft-pedalling Energy Efficiency in the owner occupied sector).
Sinn Fein has 7 MPs so that changes things a little. Perhaps one or two of the other 11 NI MPs might back the Government.
So you've got 315 Labour, LD and Greens on one side - 257 Conservative plus 55 SNP on the other equals 312.
The Speaker would support the Government on a tied vote so that leaves 4 Plaid and assuming the same as in 2019, 8 DUP, 2 SDLP and 1 Alliance MP.
Let's put the DUP eight with the Con/SNP side which equals 320 but if you put Plaid, SDLP and Alliance with the Lab/LD/Greens you'd have 322 (leaving the Speaker and the 7 absent SF MPs)
That makes the kingmakers Plaid Cymru and if they back the Government, Starmer doesn't need the SNP.
Sinn Fein has 7 MPs so that changes things a little. Perhaps one or two of the other 11 NI MPs might back the Government.
So you've got 315 Labour, LD and Greens on one side - 257 Conservative plus 55 SNP on the other equals 312.
The Speaker would support the Government on a tied vote so that leaves 4 Plaid and assuming the same as in 2019, 8 DUP, 2 SDLP and 1 Alliance MP.
Let's put the DUP eight with the Con/SNP side which equals 320 but if you put Plaid, SDLP and Alliance with the Lab/LD/Greens you'd have 322 (leaving the Speaker and the 7 absent SF MPs)
That makes the kingmakers Plaid Cymru and if they back the Government, Starmer doesn't need the SNP.
Still sounds like hell for Starmer to me. LibDem coalition, or potent minority Government with LibDem confidence and supply makes sense; but I think he’d do anything to avoid the above “rainbow” scenario. He’d have to take power but he’d hate it, and run a big risk of a death Tory Gvt not long down the line.
Edit - And Labour on the way to power will of course rediscover all the reasons not to do PR.
I'm slightly and happily shocked that Americans have SUCH a positive view of France.
Many Americans thoughts of France will be of it as a vacation destination rather than political judgement on its government. A bit like how a British person's views of Tanzania will be clueless about its policy position but be aware it is great for safari.
There is also France helping George Washington turf out those perfidious British.
Ah, the Gilbert du Motier connection.
They also got a nice statue from the French. Perhaps the most important symbol in the world (although perhaps that's mainlyjust due to its name).
I said a week or two back that Mercedes were probably a good lay at less than evens for the F1 championship. Looking as though that might be a decent bet. Hamilton absolutely emphatic that Mercedes is not in a good position right now. He doesn't expect Mercedes to fight for wins in its current form and says if people don't believe that, they will be surprised next weekend.
Asked if he can fight for the title this year, he says: "Obviously it’s a little bit too early to have those kinds of thoughts. At the moment I don’t think we’ll be competing for wins. But there is potential within our car to get us there. We’ve just got to extract it and fix our problems.
"That’s what we’re working on. Everyone’s doing a fantastic job, working as hard as they can.
"We have hurdles to overcome. Next week we will have a better showing of our pace. People will be surprised maybe - people think we are talking ourselves down but it’s different this year."…
Comments
If Russia wanted a leader to weaken Western unity they could do with someone who:
1) Allows Germany to get hooked on Russian energy
2) Allows German banks to get hooked on Russian criminal finance
3) Runs down German military capabilities
4) Emphasises German trade profits over human rights
5) Causes maximum disruption in the EU and NATO
6) Invites anyone in the Middle East to migrate to Europe
If we want to hit Putin's Russia (quite right too), that means things that can be done now. That can only mean reducing consumption, and probably in a hairshirt way to start with. Increasing production can't happen that quickly, whereas most of us can put a jumper on this afternoon.
Longer term, we want to end up at more efficiency and more zero carbon production. If we can be bothered, most of that can be done now; the amount of time for which we need oil and gas is more about public will than the need for new science and engineering.
Making ourselves dependent on fuels from countries run by pretty terrible people may well have been a mistake, but there's no point crying over spilt milk.
So the idea that we have solely been focusing on increasing supply or changing the energy source is a complete myth.
And yet we are talking about cutting taxes on petrol and home heating. To shore demand up.
We'd be better spending that money on free public transport.
BUT
You either believe in global free trade or you don’t, and I do. That means explicitly NOT trying to be self sufficient in much because that’s not efficient.
And transport is a huge one.
Despite the bleating from various parties on here about the SNP holding back the UK's glorious hydrocarbonised future, Nicola is stating a stone cold fact.
Do you believe that there should be global free trade in nuclear weapons and strategic launch systems?
There is also a reason that various items are specifically not on the GATT agenda(s)......
As I've said before I tend to avoid this subject because I don't have a fixed view on it, but those who do are an absolute pain in the hole about making sure you know what are their views. Thanks for adding more confirmational grist to that mill.
Sergey Khlan, a deputy of the #Kherson regional council, reports that the occupiers are preparing a referendum on the creation of a so-called Kherson People's Republic.
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1502641037461884933
After the rally, incidentally, an elderly Tory-looking lady (I know one can't generalise, but posh coat and pearls) came up to me and said she'd never been a member of any political party but had now joined Labour "since I have come to the conclusion that the Government is corrupt". 1 person is ultimate anecdata, but I do think the Blue Wall is quietly crumbling.
Sy A – short for Sailing Yacht A – was seized on Friday evening in the port of Trieste after being identified by Italian police as belonging to billionaire owner of EuroChem Group, a major fertiliser producer, and the coal company SUEK.
Video footage reportedly showed police cars with flashing lights approaching the yacht, said to be one of the largest in the world, and boarding it.
I guess the long record of the FLSOJ and the government he heads consulting and seeking accord with the Scottish government means Cambo is toast.
And we could discuss how Merkel wasn't helpful to Cameron's EU negotiations.
Nor has Germany's attitude towards NATO been conducive to Western unity - see the attempts to disrupt arms shipments to Ukraine before war started as an example.
But 85% of Crimean water comes from the Ukrainian mainland
American Voters Now View Ukraine as Favorably as France, Germany and Japan
https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1502623271719735297
Transport is trickier to solve. We've got a model of lowish density suburbia coupled with edge of town retail and business parks. (And it's not especially about us all wanting gardens and front doors- Gerogian squares and metroland suburbs work better and sell well.) It's pretty inefficient on all sorts of levels, but hard to undo.
I think you're being overly harsh overall, but it's certain that she made some big errors. The whole nuclear power one stands out to as particularly egregious. I can find rationalisations for many mistakes, but I have never been able to wrap my head around that thinking.
You present it as a simple concession, and it may well be one of the least destructive they can offer, but sacrificing your ability to choose an independent foreign policy is not a simple concession.
If they consider they must agree it it should be seen for what it is, a violent imposition, not some simple choice.
Also, given the EU attempts (not always successfully) to coordinate its responses to things, how could EU membership be compatible with a declaration that they must be neutral on certain issues? It would prevent even the possibility of EU unity at best and at worst mandate Ukraine to veto measures Russia declares to not be neutral.
2. There is no legal definition of transgender. The Equality Act -S.7(1) defines the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" and describes persons with that protected characteristic as "transsexual persons".
3. The GRA 2004 does not contain a definition of transgender either. Persons who can acquire a GR certificate are referred to as people with gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder or transsexualism.
4. Those men with a GRC can legally call themselves women for many but, note, not all purposes. But note that men with a GRC is not the same as men who claim to be transwomen. The latter legally are not women. The former is a much smaller group than the latter, insofar as the latter can even be defined let alone counted.
5. In fact, there is no legal definition or indeed common understanding of what "transwoman" means. It can mean someone with gender dysphoria to someone who simply likes dressing in womens clothes from time to time or a man with autogynephilia.
6. The Equality Act 2010 does two things:
(1) it outlaws discrimination against those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (as defined under the GRA); but
(2) it does permit those with a GRC to be excluded from certain spaces on the grounds of sex where it is necessary to do so in order to preserve a single sex space. See Schedule 3 sections 26-28.
Sir Keir Starmer should know all these things or should be able to get advice from lawyers specialising in this area of law or, indeed, he could read the Acts.
For him to say as loosely as he has done that "transwomen" (undefined) are women (a defined term) is not correct. The problem with such loose language is that any change in the legal definitions will necessarily have an impact on the legal rights that result from those definitions. That will mean, for instance, that women would no longer have single sex spaces. You may think this of no importance. But let me ask this. If you were a woman who had been raped and violently abused why should you run the risk of facing a man in a rape shelter simply because he claims to be a woman? Or why should you run the risk of facing a man with autogynephilia in a woman's changing room? (There are some disturbing videos of what this means in practice, I should warn you.)
It will also mean that equal pay rights, for instance, which are dependant on sex will be impacted. Discrimination on the basis of sex continues but if you alter definitions and rights without recognising this you make it impossible to describe the reality of what happens and make it legally and practically difficult to deal with it. The issue of equal pay and pay comparators is hard enough as it is without having it skewed by including men claiming to be women.
With pollution, an incremental series of changes over the years has massively dropped emission of various pollutants. Similar, with electrical efficiency, a whole range of products and systems are vastly more efficient than they were.
These changes have partly been regulatory, and partly by manufacturers selling "energy efficient" as a desirable feature.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10605735/JK-Rowling-slams-Keir-Starmer-Labour-leader-says-trans-women-women.html
Early BLM mole Herbert Frahm, famous for introducing the kneefall into the world of political virtue signalling (being bought off with a nobel peace prize), ultimately caved in.
Once he was taken out of the picture by the Guillaume gambit, his successor ordered Thyssen to supply the pipes, Erich sent some engineering crews to assemble the whole shebang, and from that point on everything unravelled as planned. Germany - hooked on Russian gas for 45 years running - was isolated from "the west", NATO was hollowed out from within and then disbanded, the Forces of Good ended the cold war with their capitulation because the Soviets made some promises they later reneged on, and a look at the map today shows us Mexico and Canada as Warshaw pact members with Soviet missiles stationed in Alberta and Yucatan. Just like Valentin Falin dreamed it all up 1965.
Depends - as so often - on tone and context.
Take the much profiled "Only women have a cervix".
If you're sat around just generally chewing the fat about body parts and biology - as per any normal Saturday - there is nothing wrong whatsoever with this statement. Because it's true. Or rather it's as close to being true as makes no difference. It's fine and dandy and most certainly not transphobic.
But it isn't *completely* true because there are many thousands of people - and that's just in the UK - who were born female but have transitioned to male. They have a certificate to prove this. They are therefore men. Legally they are. This is a fact. As much of a fact as that they were born female.
Now back to our (usually fine and dandy) statement that "Only women have a cervix" - if you come bowling in with this as a certain and perfect 100% fact in the context of the transgender debate what you are saying (deliberately) is that all those people referred to above, despite having gone through the F to M gender transition process and become men are actually NOT men. They are women. Because they have a cervix. Biology is destiny.
So the 'cervix' statement when delivered in this tone and context looks rather different, doesn't it? It's now nullifying the identity of trans people and effectively saying the whole notion of gender transition is a pretendy nonsense. And this IS transphobic. Or at least it very likely is.
(I know it's only Italy, but still)
https://mobile.twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1502335524262096897
Guido’s response...
https://order-order.com/2022/03/12/a-personal-statement/
As someone on the receiving end of writ threats as an occupational hazard, it is not my inclination to sue for defamation, this internet meme that I advised the Kremlin is clearly defamatory, particularly so in the contemporary context. The only advice I gave them was unpaid, in public and it was to free Alexi Navalny and stop locking up political opponents. I’m proud of that advice and would tell them the same today.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2022/01/britain-predicts
What we have seen in the last week looks like a fairly radical departure from a very long term strategy from outside. Would you agree?
I suspect these two things are more linked than you might think. In terms of Maslow's pyramid of important stuff going on, this one is about as far removed from the basic necessities of life (food, security, a roof over your head) as you can get. The sort of thing you only really debate when absolutely everything else is settled.
However, in focusing on things like the trans issue, we have forgotten to focus on the important things. Food, security, a roof over our heads. All of which may be gone very soon. Truly fiddling while Rome burns.
Not so. There is still much debate swirling. A taste
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/03/07/how-believers-paranormal-birthed-pentagons-new-hunt-ufos.html
"In Oregon, a man said his health deteriorated after a glowing blue orb passed through his body. A family in California reported strange lights and a gray figure with spindly legs in their orchard. A werewolf-like creature allegedly prowled around homes in suburban Virginia.
"All three incidents were probed as part of a secret Pentagon program investigating UFOs. The program, contracted by the Defense Intelligence Agency, plumbed the connection between the flying objects and the paranormal for two years, according to the men who ran it.
"It was the beginning of a years-long effort by UFO advocates that eventually led to Congress passing legislation in December 2021 ordering the Pentagon to spend the next four years investigating unidentified flying objects."
TL;DR some ufologists are crazy but there is still a mystery here:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2021/06/29/ufos-could-be-us-military-craft-says-electromagnetic-drive-inventor/?sh=60ced8dc4e19
TL;DR: UFOs are US tech
https://twitter.com/MiddleOfMayhem/status/1502034755067416592?s=20&t=cgkxP7uLLxOJCEriG63-9Q
TL;DR: they are foreign but very human tech (at least we know now they aren't Russian)
I like this theory:
"What if UFOs are piloted by Earth's billionaires from our future, experimenting with timelines?"
It would be a pity to pass up the chance of winning in the West Indies, we don't often win there.
But he will still leave it too long though!
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1502656773802663942
Here are the numbers for 2000 to 2020 for households (despite soft-pedalling Energy Efficiency in the owner occupied sector).
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1021836/Energy_Consumption_in_the_UK_2021.pdf
The reduction in the domestic sector total energy use over that period is around 20-25%.
Then you need to add in that there are at least 15% more dwellings, and the population has gone from 59m in 2000 to 67m in 2020.
Still that overall reduction has been achieved; the progress is remarkable.
Can anyone find a stated per-household energy consumption figure since say 2000 to now. TO me it looks like approximately 40% or a little more.
So you've got 315 Labour, LD and Greens on one side - 257 Conservative plus 55 SNP on the other equals 312.
The Speaker would support the Government on a tied vote so that leaves 4 Plaid and assuming the same as in 2019, 8 DUP, 2 SDLP and 1 Alliance MP.
Let's put the DUP eight with the Con/SNP side which equals 320 but if you put Plaid, SDLP and Alliance with the Lab/LD/Greens you'd have 322 (leaving the Speaker and the 7 absent SF MPs)
That makes the kingmakers Plaid Cymru and if they back the Government, Starmer doesn't need the SNP.
Edit - And Labour on the way to power will of course rediscover all the reasons not to do PR.
Looking as though that might be a decent bet.
Hamilton absolutely emphatic that Mercedes is not in a good position right now. He doesn't expect Mercedes to fight for wins in its current form and says if people don't believe that, they will be surprised next weekend.
Asked if he can fight for the title this year, he says: "Obviously it’s a little bit too early to have those kinds of thoughts. At the moment I don’t think we’ll be competing for wins. But there is potential within our car to get us there. We’ve just got to extract it and fix our problems.
"That’s what we’re working on. Everyone’s doing a fantastic job, working as hard as they can.
"We have hurdles to overcome. Next week we will have a better showing of our pace. People will be surprised maybe - people think we are talking ourselves down but it’s different this year."…
First race is only a week away.