Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Your regular reminder that the questions influence poll responses – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,683
edited March 2022 in General
Your regular reminder that the questions influence poll responses – politicalbetting.com

A nice and telling comparison from Navigator Research pic.twitter.com/LuAcs20xxI

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,416
    edited March 2022
    On topic. Nice new thread.

    But it’s not a balanced header. In fact it’s not true TSE.

    Back to my original post on previous thread, US politics ganging up on White House war strategy something we should be keeping an eye on. If it moves to a Ukraine annexed into big Putin finger at west position, and US politics from left to right angry at this, does it make Biden a lame duck, and plunge democrats into electoral trouble?

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-lawmakers-put-pressure-biden-help-with-transfer-european-aircraft-ukraine-2022-03-07/

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10600763/Republicans-tear-Biden-administration-refusing-jets-Ukraine.html
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,201
    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    Badly.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
  • Options
    BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    Badly, but I support your efforts on the issues of first.
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,812
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Nailed Quordle for the first time tho :)
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,242
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,796

    On topic. Nice new thread.

    But it’s not a balanced header. In fact it’s not true TSE.

    Back to my original post on previous thread, US politics ganging up on White House war strategy something we should be keeping an eye on. If it moves to a Ukraine annexed into big Putin finger at west position, and US politics from left to right angry at this, does it make Biden a lame duck, and plunge democrats into electoral trouble?

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-lawmakers-put-pressure-biden-help-with-transfer-european-aircraft-ukraine-2022-03-07/

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10600763/Republicans-tear-Biden-administration-refusing-jets-Ukraine.html

    This looks like a bit of positive news, if the Republicans have moved on from their mistaken admiration of Putin and realised there is more to be gained from attacking Biden for being weak.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    That would be the plan, in a prefect world.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,242
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    That would be the plan, in a prefect world.
    I think we're Cortina punning spiral here.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    That would be the plan, in a prefect world.
    I think we're Cortina punning spiral here.
    I just don't ka.
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,812
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    That would be the plan, in a prefect world.
    We're not cort in a punning loop again?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    darkage said:

    On topic. Nice new thread.

    But it’s not a balanced header. In fact it’s not true TSE.

    Back to my original post on previous thread, US politics ganging up on White House war strategy something we should be keeping an eye on. If it moves to a Ukraine annexed into big Putin finger at west position, and US politics from left to right angry at this, does it make Biden a lame duck, and plunge democrats into electoral trouble?

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-lawmakers-put-pressure-biden-help-with-transfer-european-aircraft-ukraine-2022-03-07/

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10600763/Republicans-tear-Biden-administration-refusing-jets-Ukraine.html

    This looks like a bit of positive news, if the Republicans have moved on from their mistaken admiration of Putin and realised there is more to be gained from attacking Biden for being weak.
    Trump will of course deny that he ever called Putin a genius and depressingly large numbers of people will believe him.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,282
    A big field of retrievers, spaniels, setters and pointers enter the arena for the judging of the last group, Gundogs. The 32 being the best of the 3,700 entries in this group.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    Can I escort you to your coat, sir?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you telling me that I can get wordle in 1??
  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Is this the correct answer to that photo?
    Wordle 267 3/6*

    ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
    ⬜🟩🟨⬜🟩
    🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,974
    Pro_Rata said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    That would be the plan, in a prefect world.
    We're not cort in a punning loop again?
    Focus boys
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60635693

    We are still not taking sanctions seriously enough. Surely at least 2 goals a game.
  • Options
    Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,386

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    Can I escort you to your coat, sir?
    We mustn't leave an xtrail.
  • Options
    BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,447
    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,109

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    Can I escort you to your coat, sir?
    aRS
  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,010

    On topic. Nice new thread.

    But it’s not a balanced header. In fact it’s not true TSE.

    Back to my original post on previous thread, US politics ganging up on White House war strategy something we should be keeping an eye on. If it moves to a Ukraine annexed into big Putin finger at west position, and US politics from left to right angry at this, does it make Biden a lame duck, and plunge democrats into electoral trouble?

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-lawmakers-put-pressure-biden-help-with-transfer-european-aircraft-ukraine-2022-03-07/

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10600763/Republicans-tear-Biden-administration-refusing-jets-Ukraine.html

    Surely the best position is to publicly refuse to let the Ukrainians have the Polish MIGs, and then let them have them anyway. To prosecute a war you lie, you cheat, you scheme. "Truth is the first casualty of war" as someone once said.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,416
    darkage said:

    On topic. Nice new thread.

    But it’s not a balanced header. In fact it’s not true TSE.

    Back to my original post on previous thread, US politics ganging up on White House war strategy something we should be keeping an eye on. If it moves to a Ukraine annexed into big Putin finger at west position, and US politics from left to right angry at this, does it make Biden a lame duck, and plunge democrats into electoral trouble?

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-lawmakers-put-pressure-biden-help-with-transfer-european-aircraft-ukraine-2022-03-07/

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10600763/Republicans-tear-Biden-administration-refusing-jets-Ukraine.html

    This looks like a bit of positive news, if the Republicans have moved on from their mistaken admiration of Putin and realised there is more to be gained from attacking Biden for being weak.
    I was harsh on TSE for saying it’s wrong, he is only fairly pointing where public opinion is now. But in just a couple of weeks there could be such a big mood shift, and the US political establishment - not just Trump nutters but moderates of both parties - is already moved on from unquestionably supporting Biden’s sleepy position will create the narrative which dramatically shifts the public opinion too.

    (though SeaShantyz take on this I will love to listen to)
  • Options
    philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Is this the correct answer to that photo?
    Wordle 267 3/6*

    ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
    ⬜🟩🟨⬜🟩
    🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩


    No this is the correct answer

    Wordle 267 3/6

    ⬜⬜🟨🟩⬜
    🟩🟩⬜🟩⬜
    🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,001
    Pro_Rata said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Nailed Quordle for the first time tho :)
    Bottom left was tough
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,645
    IanB2 said:

    A big field of retrievers, spaniels, setters and pointers enter the arena for the judging of the last group, Gundogs. The 32 being the best of the 3,700 entries in this group.

    I reckon the Toy poodle will win BiS, though the Irish Terrier would be my choice.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,282
    The wirehaired vizsla is just nine months old, very unusual to win best of breed so young.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307

    On topic. Nice new thread.

    But it’s not a balanced header. In fact it’s not true TSE.

    Back to my original post on previous thread, US politics ganging up on White House war strategy something we should be keeping an eye on. If it moves to a Ukraine annexed into big Putin finger at west position, and US politics from left to right angry at this, does it make Biden a lame duck, and plunge democrats into electoral trouble?

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-lawmakers-put-pressure-biden-help-with-transfer-european-aircraft-ukraine-2022-03-07/

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10600763/Republicans-tear-Biden-administration-refusing-jets-Ukraine.html

    Surely the best position is to publicly refuse to let the Ukrainians have the Polish MIGs, and then let them have them anyway. To prosecute a war you lie, you cheat, you scheme. "Truth is the first casualty of war" as someone once said.
    Not if Putin has his way.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,796
    WRT to the $14bn military aid US military aid to Ukraine over the coming years.
    As of Friday the Ukranian government had raised $387 million, through private donations towards the defence of Ukraine.
    It made $13.5 million on one day (Friday)
    If this level of private donations continues, then it will match that of the US military aid.
    At this rate, the war against Russia could be crowdfunded.
  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    edited March 2022
    malcolmg said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    That would be the plan, in a prefect world.
    We're not cort in a punning loop again?
    Focus boys
    Perhaps we need some sort of Fusion of all these Ford puns.

    Or is that too American a reference (US name for Mondeo)
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,645
    IanB2 said:

    The wirehaired vizsla is just nine months old, very unusual to win best of breed so young.

    Very illiquid market on BFX but only market that I can see.

  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,197
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    TODAY was yesterday, or was it the day before?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,409
    DavidL said:

    On topic. Nice new thread.

    But it’s not a balanced header. In fact it’s not true TSE.

    Back to my original post on previous thread, US politics ganging up on White House war strategy something we should be keeping an eye on. If it moves to a Ukraine annexed into big Putin finger at west position, and US politics from left to right angry at this, does it make Biden a lame duck, and plunge democrats into electoral trouble?

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-lawmakers-put-pressure-biden-help-with-transfer-european-aircraft-ukraine-2022-03-07/

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10600763/Republicans-tear-Biden-administration-refusing-jets-Ukraine.html

    Surely the best position is to publicly refuse to let the Ukrainians have the Polish MIGs, and then let them have them anyway. To prosecute a war you lie, you cheat, you scheme. "Truth is the first casualty of war" as someone once said.
    Not if Putin has his way.
    Migs with B61s

    Hand them over in broad daylight while proclaiming there are "no nuclear weapons here".
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,616

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    Can I escort you to your coat, sir?
    Try telling that to my Gran, Ada.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,974

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    Can I escort you to your coat, sir?
    We mustn't leave an xtrail.
    use the pathfinder
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,050
    FPT

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.

    I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.

    Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.

    As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.

    Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.

    Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.

    I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
    I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.

    I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.

    I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
    Problem is it means no one sells.

    Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.

    Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.

    So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?

    You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,945
    TimT said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    That would be the plan, in a prefect world.
    We're not cort in a punning loop again?
    Focus boys
    Perhaps we need some sort of Fusion of all these Ford puns.

    Or is that too American a reference (US name for Mondeo)
    Now you are just being Capri-cious
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,242
    edited March 2022

    TimT said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    That would be the plan, in a prefect world.
    We're not cort in a punning loop again?
    Focus boys
    Perhaps we need some sort of Fusion of all these Ford puns.

    Or is that too American a reference (US name for Mondeo)
    Now you are just being Capri-cious
    These puns are truly terrible. The topic's clearly far too Popular.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,215

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328

    TimT said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    That would be the plan, in a prefect world.
    We're not cort in a punning loop again?
    Focus boys
    Perhaps we need some sort of Fusion of all these Ford puns.

    Or is that too American a reference (US name for Mondeo)
    Now you are just being Capri-cious
    Way Tahoe, Richard!
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,282
    edited March 2022
    And the gundog shortlist is the Brittany, the Vizsla, Irish Setter, Pointer, flat-coated retriever, the cocker spaniel, the curly-coated retriever, and the weimaraner

    The winner is…the flat-coated retriever from Norway, already a European prize winner, with the Irish Setter second.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,298
    edited March 2022

    FPT

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.

    I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.

    Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.

    As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.

    Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.

    Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.

    I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
    I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.

    I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.

    I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
    Problem is it means no one sells.

    Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.

    Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.

    So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?

    You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
    Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power

    Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,242
    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?

    There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    edited March 2022
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?

    There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
    The interviewer was right not to press her. Her argument needs no undoing other than her own words. Sometimes a gobsmacked look is the most eloquent response.
  • Options
    Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,749
    ydoethur said:

    TimT said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    That would be the plan, in a prefect world.
    We're not cort in a punning loop again?
    Focus boys
    Perhaps we need some sort of Fusion of all these Ford puns.

    Or is that too American a reference (US name for Mondeo)
    Now you are just being Capri-cious
    These puns are truly terrible. The topic's clearly far too Popular.
    Ten would be my limit.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    And I was already depressed. Thanks.
  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328

    ydoethur said:

    TimT said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    That would be the plan, in a prefect world.
    We're not cort in a punning loop again?
    Focus boys
    Perhaps we need some sort of Fusion of all these Ford puns.

    Or is that too American a reference (US name for Mondeo)
    Now you are just being Capri-cious
    These puns are truly terrible. The topic's clearly far too Popular.
    Ten would be my limit.
    Just as well we're on cars, not trucks. Otherwise it'd be 350.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,645
    ydoethur said:

    TimT said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    That would be the plan, in a prefect world.
    We're not cort in a punning loop again?
    Focus boys
    Perhaps we need some sort of Fusion of all these Ford puns.

    Or is that too American a reference (US name for Mondeo)
    Now you are just being Capri-cious
    These puns are truly terrible. The topic's clearly far too Popular.
    We need a new Anglia on the topic.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,282
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    TimT said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    That would be the plan, in a prefect world.
    We're not cort in a punning loop again?
    Focus boys
    Perhaps we need some sort of Fusion of all these Ford puns.

    Or is that too American a reference (US name for Mondeo)
    Now you are just being Capri-cious
    These puns are truly terrible. The topic's clearly far too Popular.
    We need a new Anglia on the topic.
    Can I escort the bunch of you out of the forum…
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,340
    darkage said:

    WRT to the $14bn military aid US military aid to Ukraine over the coming years.
    As of Friday the Ukranian government had raised $387 million, through private donations towards the defence of Ukraine.
    It made $13.5 million on one day (Friday)
    If this level of private donations continues, then it will match that of the US military aid.
    At this rate, the war against Russia could be crowdfunded.

    Fitting for a war in which our main weapon has been to “cancel” Russia and the Russians.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,553
    Changes in the demographics of Famous Belgians.

    Yesterday the most important Belgian movie awards were handed out.

    For the first time ever it was all gender neutral. No separate categories for men and women. Everyone was super happy and excited about that!

    Not 1 woman received an award.

    All women were very mad afterwards.

    https://twitter.com/QuintenFrancois/status/1503051502495186947

    FPT

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.

    I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.

    Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.

    As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.

    Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.

    Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.

    I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
    I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.

    I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.

    I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
    Problem is it means no one sells.

    Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.

    Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.

    So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?

    You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
    Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power

    Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
    If prices fall a little and we have a less distorted market, then it would not necessarily be a less attractive house.

    (Though "attractive" of a house is not really a meaningful quality, since we all have varying opinions, and in a more orderly market that would change.)
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,050

    FPT

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.

    I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.

    Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.

    As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.

    Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.

    Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.

    I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
    I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.

    I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.

    I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
    Problem is it means no one sells.

    Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.

    Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.

    So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?

    You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
    Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power

    Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
    That too.

    It’s a shame because residential property is woefully under taxed but that’s politics

    “They want to take your home”
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,242
    MattW said:

    Changes in the demographics of Famous Belgians.

    Yesterday the most important Belgian movie awards were handed out.

    For the first time ever it was all gender neutral. No separate categories for men and women. Everyone was super happy and excited about that!

    Not 1 woman received an award.

    All women were very mad afterwards.

    https://twitter.com/QuintenFrancois/status/1503051502495186947

    So it was a complete cock up?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    Very little sign of progress by Russia today. Managed to fire missiles at a few new places, including a warning shot against any NATO forces that might be hanging around but no evidence of any advances against any of the city targets.
    I think that logistics are still slowing them down as much as the Ukrainians. Quite a poor effort in truth.
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,340
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    TimT said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    That would be the plan, in a prefect world.
    We're not cort in a punning loop again?
    Focus boys
    Perhaps we need some sort of Fusion of all these Ford puns.

    Or is that too American a reference (US name for Mondeo)
    Now you are just being Capri-cious
    These puns are truly terrible. The topic's clearly far too Popular.
    We need a new Anglia on the topic.
    Can I escort the bunch of you out of the forum…
    Are you the prefect?
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    TimT said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    That would be the plan, in a prefect world.
    We're not cort in a punning loop again?
    Focus boys
    Perhaps we need some sort of Fusion of all these Ford puns.

    Or is that too American a reference (US name for Mondeo)
    Now you are just being Capri-cious
    These puns are truly terrible. The topic's clearly far too Popular.
    You want to be Freda the obligation to carry it on?
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,225
    darkage said:

    On topic. Nice new thread.

    But it’s not a balanced header. In fact it’s not true TSE.

    Back to my original post on previous thread, US politics ganging up on White House war strategy something we should be keeping an eye on. If it moves to a Ukraine annexed into big Putin finger at west position, and US politics from left to right angry at this, does it make Biden a lame duck, and plunge democrats into electoral trouble?

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-lawmakers-put-pressure-biden-help-with-transfer-european-aircraft-ukraine-2022-03-07/

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10600763/Republicans-tear-Biden-administration-refusing-jets-Ukraine.html

    This looks like a bit of positive news, if the Republicans have moved on from their mistaken admiration of Putin and realised there is more to be gained from attacking Biden for being weak.
    He's not being weak imo. He's being clear on the 2 things he needs to be clear about. The US will not fight Russia in Ukraine. The US will honour its NATO obligations.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,215
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?

    There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
    The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?

    So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.

    That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.

    This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
  • Options
    BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    darkage said:

    WRT to the $14bn military aid US military aid to Ukraine over the coming years.
    As of Friday the Ukranian government had raised $387 million, through private donations towards the defence of Ukraine.
    It made $13.5 million on one day (Friday)
    If this level of private donations continues, then it will match that of the US military aid.
    At this rate, the war against Russia could be crowdfunded.

    Good for them, and everybody who has contributed. do you have the link to how to donate directly to there defence?

    I do think Germany could save themselves a lot of money if instead of spending 100 billion Euro on their own defence over the next 5 years, they gave 5 billion Euros worth are arms over the next 2 weeks. and with it brought humiliated the Russians so much so that Putin never tries again or better still is overthrown.

    Looking at the list of supply's on Wikipedia, (no doubt incomplete) 2,000 rifles here, 700 first aid kits, 5,000 sets of body armed, doesn't look like it will add up to much. with a few exceptions.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    TimT said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    That would be the plan, in a prefect world.
    We're not cort in a punning loop again?
    Focus boys
    Perhaps we need some sort of Fusion of all these Ford puns.

    Or is that too American a reference (US name for Mondeo)
    Now you are just being Capri-cious
    These puns are truly terrible. The topic's clearly far too Popular.
    We need a new Anglia on the topic.
    Can I escort the bunch of you out of the forum…
    We'll need an Explorer to go any further
  • Options

    FPT

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.

    I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.

    Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.

    As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.

    Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.

    Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.

    I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
    I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.

    I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.

    I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
    Problem is it means no one sells.

    Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.

    Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.

    So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?

    You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
    Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power

    Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
    That too.

    It’s a shame because residential property is woefully under taxed but that’s politics

    “They want to take your home”
    It is the reason no party has dared to go near taxing people's homes
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,344

    FPT

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.

    I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.

    Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.

    As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.

    Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.

    Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.

    I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
    I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.

    I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.

    I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
    Problem is it means no one sells.

    Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.

    Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.

    So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?

    You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
    Well, in those circumstances, unless desperate to move somewhere else you wouldn't, but that's already the case now; it'd be just another tax to take into account except on the sale as well as the purchase.

    At present you'd pay £5,000 on stamp duty for such a move, on top of legal fees, remortaging and moving fees, so you'd also clock a "loss" in moving from one £300k home to another, which few people do.

    Would it impact behaviours at the margins? Sure. All taxes do. This one would reduce trades a bit. But it'd also raise a good bit of revenue.

    In reality, unless forced to by work, most people don't trade like-for-like as it doesn't make sense: they move to upgrade to a much bigger property, or downsize to take a decent profit.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,050
    MattW said:

    Changes in the demographics of Famous Belgians.

    Yesterday the most important Belgian movie awards were handed out.

    For the first time ever it was all gender neutral. No separate categories for men and women. Everyone was super happy and excited about that!

    Not 1 woman received an award.

    All women were very mad afterwards.

    https://twitter.com/QuintenFrancois/status/1503051502495186947

    FPT

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.

    I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.

    Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.

    As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.

    Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.

    Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.

    I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
    I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.

    I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.

    I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
    Problem is it means no one sells.

    Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.

    Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.

    So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?

    You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
    Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power

    Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
    If prices fall a little and we have a less distorted market, then it would not necessarily be a less attractive house.

    (Though "attractive" of a house is not really a meaningful quality, since we all have varying opinions, and in a more orderly market that would change.)
    Capital gains on sale of principal private residences wouldn’t impact the value of homes. They just disadvantage normal people living their lives.

    “Attractive” was intended as a composite term. The great thing about a market is that the price indicates the consensus view of relative attractiveness of two assets taking everything into account
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,645
    edited March 2022
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    TimT said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    That would be the plan, in a prefect world.
    We're not cort in a punning loop again?
    Focus boys
    Perhaps we need some sort of Fusion of all these Ford puns.

    Or is that too American a reference (US name for Mondeo)
    Now you are just being Capri-cious
    These puns are truly terrible. The topic's clearly far too Popular.
    We need a new Anglia on the topic.
    Can I escort the bunch of you out of the forum…
    I agree, we must Model T' way out of this cul de sac.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,974
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    And I was already depressed. Thanks.
    Add harvie and you have two complete nutters.
  • Options
    JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 651
    We require a Consul to Pilot us to a Popular decision ... :smile:
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,050

    ydoethur said:

    TimT said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Do you feel I have handled the "first" issue well or badly?

    image 😝.
    Today, we should FOCUS on more important issues.
    Are you saying we should be moving Ford?
    That would be the plan, in a prefect world.
    We're not cort in a punning loop again?
    Focus boys
    Perhaps we need some sort of Fusion of all these Ford puns.

    Or is that too American a reference (US name for Mondeo)
    Now you are just being Capri-cious
    These puns are truly terrible. The topic's clearly far too Popular.
    You want to be Freda the obligation to carry it on?
    The humour on here is very merc-y
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?

    There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
    The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?

    So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.

    That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.

    This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
    You can make the argument that it is a once in a lifetime (admittedly a surprisingly brief period) to remove inappropriate statues and ugly buildings but it’s a bit of a sell, no doubt about it.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,242
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?

    There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
    The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?

    So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.

    That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.

    This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
    The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.

    That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).

    In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,974
    edited March 2022
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?

    There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
    The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?

    So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.

    That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.

    This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
    You mean like all members of NATO do , only France has any real self reliance, we are just renting ours and USA decides when and if they are used.
    rUK would remain poodles.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,109

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    Can't remember any recent posts from you on your own party/sub branch, the SCons? Apols if I've missed them.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,197
    JACK_W said:

    We require a Consul to Pilot us to a Popular decision ... :smile:

    That's a Classic.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?

    There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
    The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?

    So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.

    That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.

    This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
    The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.

    That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).

    In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
    First we got the bomb and that was good…
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,433
    Dipping into RT, it appears Russia's negotiator is called 'Slutsky'. :lol:
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,050

    FPT

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.

    I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.

    Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.

    As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.

    Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.

    Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.

    I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
    I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.

    I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.

    I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
    Problem is it means no one sells.

    Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.

    Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.

    So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?

    You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
    Well, in those circumstances, unless desperate to move somewhere else you wouldn't, but that's already the case now; it'd be just another tax to take into account except on the sale as well as the purchase.

    At present you'd pay £5,000 on stamp duty for such a move, on top of legal fees, remortaging and moving fees, so you'd also clock a "loss" in moving from one £300k home to another, which few people do.

    Would it impact behaviours at the margins? Sure. All taxes do. This one would reduce trades a bit. But it'd also raise a good bit of revenue.

    In reality, unless forced to by work, most people don't trade like-for-like as it doesn't make sense: they move to upgrade to a much bigger property, or downsize to take a decent profit.
    So you want to penalise people moving to take care of their sick Mum?

    (With rollover relief it is a good idea because then it hits investors and people downsizing and taking capital out of the market, without causing friction in the market for people who are moving because they have to)
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,298
    edited March 2022
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?

    There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
    The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?

    So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.

    That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.

    This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
    And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine

    Really unbelievable error of judgement

  • Options
    BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    Looks like Ukraine might be getting 8 helicopters!

    Ok this is form youtube and no idea how accurate, but apparently there where 8 helicopters 4 Mi8 and 4Mi 24 with 250 personnel on peacekeeping mission in Africa who are about to return home.

    8 helicopters and 250 is not a lot, so don't expect it to change much, but when the enemy is getting bogged down, any extra forces is a bonus. :)
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,242
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?

    There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
    The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?

    So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.

    That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.

    This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
    The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.

    That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).

    In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
    First we got the bomb and that was good…
    In the interests of pedantry, third we got the bomb and that was good.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    And I was already depressed. Thanks.
    Add harvie and you have two complete nutters.
    If only Malc. Your unbearable optimism shining through once again.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,109
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?

    There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
    The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?

    So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.

    That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.

    This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
    Is it going to become a bigger real issue than all the other issues that you predicted would a real issue for the Scottish government?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,215
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?

    There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
    The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?

    So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.

    That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.

    This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
    The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.

    That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).

    In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
    Yes indeed

    Lots of countries will be looking at the images of flattened Ukrainian cities and will be superkeen to go nuke. Japan and South Korea spring to mind. Also Saudi Arabia and maybe even the UAE. Perhaps even Poland?

    You really couldn't blame Poland if it opted to take up nuclear missiles, not when you look at Kharkiv and Mariupol, which they will be doing
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,974

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    Can't remember any recent posts from you on your own party/sub branch, the SCons? Apols if I've missed them.
    Sockpuppet lickspittles.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,416
    edited March 2022

    On topic. Nice new thread.

    But it’s not a balanced header. In fact it’s not true TSE.

    Back to my original post on previous thread, US politics ganging up on White House war strategy something we should be keeping an eye on. If it moves to a Ukraine annexed into big Putin finger at west position, and US politics from left to right angry at this, does it make Biden a lame duck, and plunge democrats into electoral trouble?

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-lawmakers-put-pressure-biden-help-with-transfer-european-aircraft-ukraine-2022-03-07/

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10600763/Republicans-tear-Biden-administration-refusing-jets-Ukraine.html

    Surely the best position is to publicly refuse to let the Ukrainians have the Polish MIGs, and then let them have them anyway. To prosecute a war you lie, you cheat, you scheme. "Truth is the first casualty of war" as someone once said.
    Spot on John. Have we been quick, canny and even brave enough?

    On topic. The problem for Biden’s White House is both managing it today, without world war 3, but also suffering when the Ukraine leaders have been escorted away and replaced like Putin’s bogus mayors, and Putin has his goons on every border post, at which point angry electorate will say White House policy has failed, won’t they, it wasn’t brave enough. This plays straight into opponents sleepy Joe caricature

    The worry about all the money and equipment going to Ukraine government now is if it is too late to make a difference, and perhaps even ends up in hands of the Russians.

    I’m on the side of PB posters who feel West could have been quicker, smarter and braver, and being slower, dummer and more cautious/cowardly has only made it worse. 😕

    Specifically? Braver on planes and over the horizon stuff. Putin’s support to his forces from the air superiority could create a horrible shift in it now and be unfair to all the courage in the defenders

    I mean look at them. They look ready for a bit of early March garden tidy. What are they going to do against professional fighting force? Look at the Molotov cocktails you have seen stockpiled on our media, look at the instances where they have valiantly fought back with these Molotov cocktails and got wiped out. 😢

    image
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,215

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?

    There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
    The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?

    So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.

    That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.

    This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
    Is it going to become a bigger real issue than all the other issues that you predicted would a real issue for the Scottish government?
    Yes
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,974
    edited March 2022
    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    And I was already depressed. Thanks.
    Add harvie and you have two complete nutters.
    If only Malc. Your unbearable optimism shining through once again.
    I did mean Slater and Harvie David, not your goodself

    Hard to believe how bad Scottish gobvernment is nowadays , after flushing more than 100M down the drain to Ferguson's we now have these muppets paying another 100M + to Turkey to build ferries. The incompetence is breathtaking.
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,340
    edited March 2022
    BigRich said:

    Looks like Ukraine might be getting 8 helicopters!

    Ok this is form youtube and no idea how accurate, but apparently there where 8 helicopters 4 Mi8 and 4Mi 24 with 250 personnel on peacekeeping mission in Africa who are about to return home.

    8 helicopters and 250 is not a lot, so don't expect it to change much, but when the enemy is getting bogged down, any extra forces is a bonus. :)

    How? By sea? In which case, still how?

    Edit - And can’t they bring with them 20 Mig-29s that are definitely not from Poland?
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,974

    JACK_W said:

    We require a Consul to Pilot us to a Popular decision ... :smile:

    That's a Classic.
    It is ex austin
  • Options
    BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    biggles said:

    BigRich said:

    Looks like Ukraine might be getting 8 helicopters!

    Ok this is form youtube and no idea how accurate, but apparently there where 8 helicopters 4 Mi8 and 4Mi 24 with 250 personnel on peacekeeping mission in Africa who are about to return home.

    8 helicopters and 250 is not a lot, so don't expect it to change much, but when the enemy is getting bogged down, any extra forces is a bonus. :)

    How? By sea? In which case, still how?
    I don't know but I assume the helicopters at lest are flying home.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,109
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?

    There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
    The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?

    So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.

    That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.

    This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
    Is it going to become a bigger real issue than all the other issues that you predicted would a real issue for the Scottish government?
    Yes
    That means it wouldn't necessarily have to be that big..
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,215

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?

    There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
    The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?

    So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.

    That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.

    This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
    And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine

    Really unbelievable error of judgement

    I know. I thought I misheard when she said that. A colossal piece of foolishness

    Simultaneously wants Britain to surrender its nukes ((as it breaks up) but ALSO wants to do the one thing most likely to kick off WW3, when we actually might need the nukes

    My suspicion is that she knows disarmament now looks stupid, weak and bad, so she is over-compensating by trying to appear militant and aggressive against Russia. A no fly zone. OK. Right you are, Nicola
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,242

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?

    There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
    The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?

    So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.

    That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.

    This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
    And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine

    Really unbelievable error of judgement

    Well, not really. First of all, she isn't actually a leader. She runs a sub-national government with no armed forces. It's the equivalent of the governor of California calling for a no fly zone ie pretty much an irrelevance.

    Second, her aim isn't really to influence policy, but to show herself as different from Johnson (as it was through, say, most of the pandemic). In this case it's a free hit. If there is no NFZ nobody will really care what she thought, if there is, and it fails, nobody will hold it against her rather than the decision makers, and if it works, she will be able to praise her own foresight.

    Finally, it gains her some attention in the press and makes her supporters purr because it shows her doing more for Ukrainians than NATO, whom they don't like.

    So it isn't an error of judgement when you consider what she wants to achieve from it. It does show she has a rather warped set of priorities but we already knew that,
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,225
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?

    There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
    The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?

    So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.

    That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.

    This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
    The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.

    That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).

    In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
    Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,242
    malcolmg said:

    JACK_W said:

    We require a Consul to Pilot us to a Popular decision ... :smile:

    That's a Classic.
    It is ex austin
    The maestro joins in.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,433

    On topic. Nice new thread.

    But it’s not a balanced header. In fact it’s not true TSE.

    Back to my original post on previous thread, US politics ganging up on White House war strategy something we should be keeping an eye on. If it moves to a Ukraine annexed into big Putin finger at west position, and US politics from left to right angry at this, does it make Biden a lame duck, and plunge democrats into electoral trouble?

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-lawmakers-put-pressure-biden-help-with-transfer-european-aircraft-ukraine-2022-03-07/

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10600763/Republicans-tear-Biden-administration-refusing-jets-Ukraine.html

    Surely the best position is to publicly refuse to let the Ukrainians have the Polish MIGs, and then let them have them anyway. To prosecute a war you lie, you cheat, you scheme. "Truth is the first casualty of war" as someone once said.
    Spot on John. Have we been quick, canny and even brave enough?

    On topic. The problem for Biden’s White House is both managing it today, without world war 3, but also suffering when the Ukraine leaders have been escorted away and replaced like Putin’s bogus mayors, and Putin has his goons on every border post, at which point angry electorate will say White House policy has failed, won’t they, it wasn’t brave enough. This plays straight into opponents sleepy Joe caricature

    The worry about all the money and equipment going to Ukraine government now is if it is too late to make a difference, and perhaps even ends up in hands of the Russians.

    I’m on the side of PB posters who feel West could have been quicker, smarter and braver, and being slower, dummer and more cautious/cowardly has only made it worse. 😕

    Specifically? Braver on planes and over the horizon stuff. Putin’s support to his forces from the air superiority could create a horrible shift in it now and be unfair to all the courage in the defenders

    I mean look at them. They look ready for a bit of early March garden tidy. What are they going to do against professional fighting force? Look at the Molotov cocktails you have seen stockpiled on our media, look at the instances where they have valiantly fought back with these Molotov cocktails and got wiped out. 😢

    image
    The article that Topping posted today pointed out that there's been very little 'air' action at all. The author surmised that the Ukrainian airforce had been largely destroyed by missile attack on its airfields, but that Russia didn't have enough guided bombs, and its stupid bombs weren't accurate enough and involved flying low and danger from Stinger missiles, so it was avoiding it. So, happily, a stalemate.

    I don't know how accurate that article is, but it's the only real analysis I have read on the progress of the conflict.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,639
    "Two years on, Britain’s capital has recovered from covid-19
    In some ways, Brexit has helped"

    https://www.economist.com/britain/2022/03/12/two-years-on-britains-capital-has-recovered-from-covid-19
  • Options
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?

    There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
    The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?

    So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.

    That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.

    This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
    Is it going to become a bigger real issue than all the other issues that you predicted would a real issue for the Scottish government?
    Yes
    I genuinely do not think many have be able to understand just how much this war will affect opinions on a wide range of subjects and not only defence and security but also energy supply security and far more domestic production, to the billions needed not just for the NHS but now defence

    Add in the inevitable closer cooperation between UK and EU on all kinds of matters, former policies are redundant and a whole new attitude will come about with many implications across the west
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,340
    edited March 2022
    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.

    For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...

    https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1502961817701818371

    And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
    Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?

    There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
    The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?

    So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.

    That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.

    This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
    The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.

    That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).

    In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
    Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
    Missile shield and an assumption smaller countries won’t ever have the cash to build enough to overcome it. Best we can hope for…
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,001

    dixiedean said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    Do people think fracking is feasible as a supply of gas to Europe?

    Depends on the country. Yes in Poland, no in the UK.
    This is all in dispute. If petrol hits £20 a litre and the economy goes into energy-starved Depression I suspect we’d suddenly find that those UK shale reserves are ‘recoverable’, after all
    Its not a question of recoverable. It is whether it is practical on a scale to make a difference. The scale of operations is radically different from conventional drilling either onshore or offshore. I can effectively drain a reasonably sized oil field with 4 or 5 wells all from a central wellhead- less if it is gas because the injector requirements are less. To effectively exploit the UK shale gas reserves you would need between 4000 and 6000 wells. In the US they have rigs sat a few hundreds yards from each other in a long rows marching across the countryside drilling wells because the tight formations can only be exploited to small multiples of the the length of the fractures. So you need LOTS of wells. I am not sure the least nimby of residents is prepared for such industrial levels of activity in the UK countryside.
    Depends how shit the countryside is

    Lancashire is pretty bleak in places, anyway

    I accept it is unlikely to happen in the Kentish Weald
    Lancashire South of Preston is shit but Bowland and the Wyre valley which I think are fracking country are among the most beautiful bits of England
    And heavily Tory.
    Fracking has very low, temporary impact unlike solar farms! Small surface footprint. Yes, increased road traffic can be an issue but similar to quarrying.
    Solar farms don't make a lot of economic sense. Sticking panels on the rooves of houses, offices, shops, industrial parks, etc., makes a lot of sense though.

    Fracking - the issue is that we simply don't have enough idea of what the long term costs are in the UK.

    If you go to the big US shale plays, you will have massive amounts of geological data available, from core samples, to seismic, to the drilling history of 300 wells nearby. You will know the optimal well bore spacing. You will know the correct formulation of fracking fluid.

    And most importantly, you will have an excellent idea of what initial flow rates will be, and what the decline curve will be.

    (You also have massive ranches without people on them.)

    That means that an oil & gas company can evaluate very easily what a well will produce and how expensive it will be.

    We have literally none of that information in the UK. It took about fifteen years from George Mitchell fracking his first gas well to the US being in a position to export gas. Now, some things are easier now (we know fracking works for sure). But some things are harder: the US had a lot of existing infrastructure than we don't.

    Fracking *may* work in the UK. But it also may not. Let's not forget that a dozen shales in the US have been effectively abandoned, because it takes only very small changes to your initial flow rate and decline curve assumptions to change the price of gas from $5 to $50/mmbtu.
This discussion has been closed.