Give me some comfort that the Uk is not going to have to ration power this winter? I’m looking at Russian gas cuts in Europe and the Norwegians likely to increase supply to Europe to the detriment of the UK. And it has me worried.
Not a bad time to buy power banks, solar panels, usb heated clothing. Camping gas or spirit stove, etc.
I’ve already done what I can. But there’s several million vulnerable households that rely on power to operate their boiler (no continuous power supply installed to the brains and / or fuel injection pump). And to cook and boil water. And to use their landlines. And quite a few that live in areas where private water companies haven’t bothered invested in backup generators at the pumping stations. How sure are we the cell phone network would be resilient to this? Because it wasn’t over a very wide area of Kent during the storm induced extended cuts earlier this year.
As a country we are far more reliant on electricity than we were in the 70s - 80s, when most of us last experienced regular power outages. I’ll bet loads of households now don’t have any candles or even matches (fewer smokers), no way of accessing info or sending messages without mains power (mobile coverage sketchy, landline phones now fancy mains digital handsets), no way of heating or cooking.
Are we seeing a similar episode of complacent neglect among government in preparing for a very foreseeable crisis, as per Jan - Mar 2020?
Sure we’re not going to see extended cuts lasting for days. But it’s easy to imagine repeated blackouts that end up costing lives due to lack of planning by households and government.
Edit:
I forgot petrol stations. The pumps don’t work without power of course. To add another inconvenience, if power gets rationed or the grid fails to match supply with demand.
I completely agree.
What I'm preparing for is rolling blackouts, the type where you're without power for a few hours or at worst a day, and what you need is to be able to charge your laptop and your phone, and maybe heat up a can of soup or boil a cup of tea. Plus a USB bank powered jacket so I won't get cold without the heating on.
I suspect that since natural gas is only about 44% of the uk grid, that's what we'd end up with in a worst case scenario (bearing in mind we also produce our own gas). Rolling outages of a few hours every day across pockets of the UK, to reduce demand on the grid.
But that's 24 hours or so max. If the situation somehow becomes dramatically worse than that, then it is as you describe above. No power to petrol pumps, people without the ability to cook for days, most people unable to remain connected to news due to reliance on the internet, etc. Society would break down fast.
The good news is I think because of our limited reliance on natural gas and the fact we are able to produce it, albeit not enough, the worst we are looking at is rolling blackouts, rather than total chaos.
Europe however - things could get ugly fast. And unfortunately that is how Putin ends up winning in Ukraine.
Europe has lots of stored gas - not enough to get them through the winter, but you could cut Russian exports to zero, and they would probably make it to end November before they ran out. They also have some production of their own, and have pipeline imports from Norway and North Africa.
Apologies for being gloomy, but I think even if we don't see rolling blackouts this winter (what happens after November, when stored gas runs out?) the sheer cost of gas imports from elsewhere will cause the west to buckle and fold.
Once the first stories of pensioners facing the choice between heating or eating or, god forbid, freezing to death in their homes, how long before the narrative becomes "a conflict in a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing."
Before it happens hopefully. There is no way that British lives (especially civilians) should be sacrificed for some square miles of Donbass. No way no how.
I'd personally be happy to put on an extra layer and maybe do without power for a few hours a day if it means repulsing Putin's fascist war machine.
Whether or not the democracies of Europe are made of such stern stuff we shall soon see.
Well I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I certainly wouldn't. How many layers I choose to wear is entirely my affair, and in a free country where I pay taxes, I expect that choice, whether it accords with who the PM du jour wants a photo opportunity with or not. The whole thing is an utter absurdity.
I'm confused as to your stance on what choices you expect. We don't hold referendums on foreign policy, or most other things for that matter - whoever is PM will do what they think right or popular (preferably both if they can manage it), and they won't offer a choice to we the public about it, and none of them ever have done so. If they make an electorally unpopular choice they'll hear about in 2 years or so, but even with an eye on what the public will accept informing what they decide and what Parliament will accept, which will certainly be on their minds, we aren't getting a choice about it.
It wouldn't be denying us a choice, we never had a choice, not in the manner you seem to be describing.
By the way, I am British and I am entitled to post endless flatulent nonsense all about Britain on a British politics website
Why?
Because
"I hope to retire in various places, including the UK"
That's it. You, Britain, are number 8 on my list of "possible places to retire to", so here is my lecture on your disgusting politics, you awful people, just in case my first 7 retirement plans go wrong
You appear to be nursing a lot of hatred. Seek help.
This is easily solved. You are in America and have no intention of returning to Britain
Go onto the American version of PB.com. YOU LIVE IN AMERICA
Let us argue ourselves in our awful little country, which you loathe - and which you left with much relief - about the merits or otherwise of Brexit, or indeed anything else that concerns us; your opinion does not advance things
I genuinely don't understand this level of bad manners. I'm not joking. No fucking way would I intrude onto an American website and start lecturing them about their disgraceful independent American-ness and their vile hateful politics blah blah. I may THINK that, but I would never do it. And it rather exposes someone that thinks this is socially tolerable
You seem to loathe just as many Brits yourself, especially the young.
Indeed as @Gardenwalker is in much closer alignment to the majority of Britons who think Brexit a historic mistake, it is very likely that @Leon hates the majority of his country folk.
If you say so, but at the same time, the notion of Bregret becomes a sillier and more risible one as time marches on. We became an independent country when we left the EU. We joined many others in that regard, many smaller and with less advantages than we have in 'making it', and managing to do so with a lot less whining. So what is the actual problem? Let's get the eff on with it and stop whining for the tit when we're 8 years old.
Bregret is not just real, it's also majority and growing. And it's not just boomers dying off having "gifted" this to younger generations. It's more profound than that. It's people who voted for it actually saying no, this wasn't a good idea.
Do with that what you will, but there it is.
Also I have spoken to people who formerly told me they voted Leave but now claim they voted Remain.
I intended to mention exactly that in my post, then forgot and sent it. Thank you for picking up exactly that point. It's this generation's Iraq War. High levels of support early on; later: it weren't me, guv.
Spoke to one last night in the pub. Tory member, nice lady. She very definitely told me 5 years ago why she had voted for Brexit. Last night: "I voted Remain - I couldn't see the point in leaving."
There'll soon be few owning up to it. You'll just see it in certain backwaters. Caution needed though - those still believing will become increasingly truculent and perhaps unpleasant. We see this on here occasionally.
On the contrary, despite naughty words being used toward me by those of your persuasion, this true believer is becoming increasingly excellent, and never less than pleasant.
I will however continue to state that with the passage of time, a rallying call of essentially 'this being an independent sovereign democracy - we're not good at it, we can't dooo ittttttt!' rings increasingly silly. Of course we can do it, and to suggest otherwise is absurd.
More abstract nouns which mean very little in this day and age. I can just imagine people queueing at food banks thanking their lucky stars that their pockets are full of soveregnty!...
Perhaps not, but they might thank their lucky stars that the Government ultimately responsible for the economical and monetary policies guiding the country could be sacked come the next election. That's a lot more than Greek queuers at the equivalent have.
Don't the Greeks have elections?
They do, but Greek governments don't control monetary policy, the ECB does, and their economical policies were afaicr largely handed to them by EU too.
Give me some comfort that the Uk is not going to have to ration power this winter? I’m looking at Russian gas cuts in Europe and the Norwegians likely to increase supply to Europe to the detriment of the UK. And it has me worried.
Not a bad time to buy power banks, solar panels, usb heated clothing. Camping gas or spirit stove, etc.
I’ve already done what I can. But there’s several million vulnerable households that rely on power to operate their boiler (no continuous power supply installed to the brains and / or fuel injection pump). And to cook and boil water. And to use their landlines. And quite a few that live in areas where private water companies haven’t bothered invested in backup generators at the pumping stations. How sure are we the cell phone network would be resilient to this? Because it wasn’t over a very wide area of Kent during the storm induced extended cuts earlier this year.
As a country we are far more reliant on electricity than we were in the 70s - 80s, when most of us last experienced regular power outages. I’ll bet loads of households now don’t have any candles or even matches (fewer smokers), no way of accessing info or sending messages without mains power (mobile coverage sketchy, landline phones now fancy mains digital handsets), no way of heating or cooking.
Are we seeing a similar episode of complacent neglect among government in preparing for a very foreseeable crisis, as per Jan - Mar 2020?
Sure we’re not going to see extended cuts lasting for days. But it’s easy to imagine repeated blackouts that end up costing lives due to lack of planning by households and government.
Edit:
I forgot petrol stations. The pumps don’t work without power of course. To add another inconvenience, if power gets rationed or the grid fails to match supply with demand.
I completely agree.
What I'm preparing for is rolling blackouts, the type where you're without power for a few hours or at worst a day, and what you need is to be able to charge your laptop and your phone, and maybe heat up a can of soup or boil a cup of tea. Plus a USB bank powered jacket so I won't get cold without the heating on.
I suspect that since natural gas is only about 44% of the uk grid, that's what we'd end up with in a worst case scenario (bearing in mind we also produce our own gas). Rolling outages of a few hours every day across pockets of the UK, to reduce demand on the grid.
But that's 24 hours or so max. If the situation somehow becomes dramatically worse than that, then it is as you describe above. No power to petrol pumps, people without the ability to cook for days, most people unable to remain connected to news due to reliance on the internet, etc. Society would break down fast.
The good news is I think because of our limited reliance on natural gas and the fact we are able to produce it, albeit not enough, the worst we are looking at is rolling blackouts, rather than total chaos.
Europe however - things could get ugly fast. And unfortunately that is how Putin ends up winning in Ukraine.
Europe has lots of stored gas - not enough to get them through the winter, but you could cut Russian exports to zero, and they would probably make it to end November before they ran out. They also have some production of their own, and have pipeline imports from Norway and North Africa.
Apologies for being gloomy, but I think even if we don't see rolling blackouts this winter (what happens after November, when stored gas runs out?) the sheer cost of gas imports from elsewhere will cause the west to buckle and fold.
Once the first stories of pensioners facing the choice between heating or eating or, god forbid, freezing to death in their homes, how long before the narrative becomes "a conflict in a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing."
Before it happens hopefully. There is no way that British lives (especially civilians) should be sacrificed for some square miles of Donbass. No way no how.
I'd personally be happy to put on an extra layer and maybe do without power for a few hours a day if it means repulsing Putin's fascist war machine.
Whether or not the democracies of Europe are made of such stern stuff we shall soon see.
Well I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I certainly wouldn't. How many layers I choose to wear is entirely my affair, and in a free country where I pay taxes, I expect that choice, whether it accords with who the PM du jour wants a photo opportunity with or not. The whole thing is an utter absurdity.
You've made your views on that quite clear.
I think we have a moral duty to stand up to fascists, and if that means going without, so be it.
A couple of hours without heating every day is nothing compared to the hell of the massacres in Bucha, the indiscriminate cluster bombs, the mass deportations etc.
Give me some comfort that the Uk is not going to have to ration power this winter? I’m looking at Russian gas cuts in Europe and the Norwegians likely to increase supply to Europe to the detriment of the UK. And it has me worried.
Most places are ridiculously overheated in the winter in this country. I remember last winter having to constantly walk out of shops, cafes, etc to get some fresh air because the heating was on far too high. And a lot of establishments still had the heating on until the end of April which is just stupid. So there's a lot of energy to be saved in easy ways.
I don't see the parent comment, but the UK does have a particular issue - we have essentially no stored gas. If we get outbid on lng cargos, we can find ourselves running out very quickly.
The EU, by contrast, has a much worse external dependence, but they also have a buffer.
Give me some comfort that the Uk is not going to have to ration power this winter? I’m looking at Russian gas cuts in Europe and the Norwegians likely to increase supply to Europe to the detriment of the UK. And it has me worried.
Not a bad time to buy power banks, solar panels, usb heated clothing. Camping gas or spirit stove, etc.
I’ve already done what I can. But there’s several million vulnerable households that rely on power to operate their boiler (no continuous power supply installed to the brains and / or fuel injection pump). And to cook and boil water. And to use their landlines. And quite a few that live in areas where private water companies haven’t bothered invested in backup generators at the pumping stations. How sure are we the cell phone network would be resilient to this? Because it wasn’t over a very wide area of Kent during the storm induced extended cuts earlier this year.
As a country we are far more reliant on electricity than we were in the 70s - 80s, when most of us last experienced regular power outages. I’ll bet loads of households now don’t have any candles or even matches (fewer smokers), no way of accessing info or sending messages without mains power (mobile coverage sketchy, landline phones now fancy mains digital handsets), no way of heating or cooking.
Are we seeing a similar episode of complacent neglect among government in preparing for a very foreseeable crisis, as per Jan - Mar 2020?
Sure we’re not going to see extended cuts lasting for days. But it’s easy to imagine repeated blackouts that end up costing lives due to lack of planning by households and government.
Edit:
I forgot petrol stations. The pumps don’t work without power of course. To add another inconvenience, if power gets rationed or the grid fails to match supply with demand.
I completely agree.
What I'm preparing for is rolling blackouts, the type where you're without power for a few hours or at worst a day, and what you need is to be able to charge your laptop and your phone, and maybe heat up a can of soup or boil a cup of tea. Plus a USB bank powered jacket so I won't get cold without the heating on.
I suspect that since natural gas is only about 44% of the uk grid, that's what we'd end up with in a worst case scenario (bearing in mind we also produce our own gas). Rolling outages of a few hours every day across pockets of the UK, to reduce demand on the grid.
But that's 24 hours or so max. If the situation somehow becomes dramatically worse than that, then it is as you describe above. No power to petrol pumps, people without the ability to cook for days, most people unable to remain connected to news due to reliance on the internet, etc. Society would break down fast.
The good news is I think because of our limited reliance on natural gas and the fact we are able to produce it, albeit not enough, the worst we are looking at is rolling blackouts, rather than total chaos.
Europe however - things could get ugly fast. And unfortunately that is how Putin ends up winning in Ukraine.
Europe has lots of stored gas - not enough to get them through the winter, but you could cut Russian exports to zero, and they would probably make it to end November before they ran out. They also have some production of their own, and have pipeline imports from Norway and North Africa.
Apologies for being gloomy, but I think even if we don't see rolling blackouts this winter (what happens after November, when stored gas runs out?) the sheer cost of gas imports from elsewhere will cause the west to buckle and fold.
Once the first stories of pensioners facing the choice between heating or eating or, god forbid, freezing to death in their homes, how long before the narrative becomes "a conflict in a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing."
Before it happens hopefully. There is no way that British lives (especially civilians) should be sacrificed for some square miles of Donbass. No way no how.
I'd personally be happy to put on an extra layer and maybe do without power for a few hours a day if it means repulsing Putin's fascist war machine.
Whether or not the democracies of Europe are made of such stern stuff we shall soon see.
Well I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I certainly wouldn't. How many layers I choose to wear is entirely my affair, and in a free country where I pay taxes, I expect that choice, whether it accords with who the PM du jour wants a photo opportunity with or not. The whole thing is an utter absurdity.
You've made your views on that quite clear.
I think we have a moral duty to stand up to fascists, and if that means going without, so be it.
A couple of hours without heating every day is nothing compared to the hell of the massacres in Bucha, the indiscriminate cluster bombs, the mass deportations etc.
We didn't stand up to genuine fascists when they ruled Spain until the 1970's, and I am entirely comfortable with that fact. You look after the security and wellbeing of your own people before you prance about the world stage. That's the basics of being a Government. Otherwise what's the point?
Give me some comfort that the Uk is not going to have to ration power this winter? I’m looking at Russian gas cuts in Europe and the Norwegians likely to increase supply to Europe to the detriment of the UK. And it has me worried.
Most places are ridiculously overheated in the winter in this country. I remember last winter having to constantly walk out of shops, cafes, etc to get some fresh air because the heating was on far too high. And a lot of establishments still had the heating on until the end of April which is just stupid. So there's a lot of energy to be saved in easy ways.
I don't see the parent comment, but the UK does have a particular issue - we have essentially no stored gas. If we get outbid on lng cargos, we can find ourselves running out very quickly.
The EU, by contrast, has a much worse external dependence, but they also have a buffer.
Why do we still have no storage? I didn't read the recent energy security bill, but I'd have expected that to be in it.
Suella has been eliminated and it is widely expected that the majority of her vote goes to Truss and most of the rest goes to Badenoch. So how many Braverman votes does Penny get? Maybe hardly any. Will she get any votes moving her way from her other rivals in round 3? Not obviously. Will she retain all or most of her own vote? Probably.
So, overall, unless someone drops out she may just tread water in round 3. And may possiblly get overtaken by Truss.
Then it's round 4. TiT has to go and his 32 votes (+/- changes from round 3) will be up for grabs. How many does Penny get? Most surely go to Rishi. Finally she relies on Kemi or Penny's cast offs after round 5 to get into the final 2. Not obvious she gets many of those but she might.
She seems to have a far from easy path to the final 2 to me. She is currently 1.55-1.65 with Betfair to make the final. She was shorter an hour ago at about 1.45. I would say Rishi is almost nailed on for the final 2 and Penny is about Evens.
The question is whether Badenoch can overtake Truss and get into the final 3. Then it could be close between all 3 of them in the final round.
I just cannot see it. I know she was only 15 votes behind, but there was definitely a push for 'the right' to swind behind Truss, and poor communicator or not the MPs know her, know she can handle a department, and she has had positive ratings from members.
Some queue jumper with 5 years in parliament, albeit being a decent performer, could they really be trusted to not only deliver in the post, but be relied upon to deliver what they want, when they dont know them so well?
Suella has been eliminated and it is widely expected that the majority of her vote goes to Truss and most of the rest goes to Badenoch. So how many Braverman votes does Penny get? Maybe hardly any. Will she get any votes moving her way from her other rivals in round 3? Not obviously. Will she retain all or most of her own vote? Probably.
So, overall, unless someone drops out she may just tread water in round 3. And may possiblly get overtaken by Truss.
Then it's round 4. TiT has to go and his 32 votes (+/- changes from round 3) will be up for grabs. How many does Penny get? Most surely go to Rishi. Finally she relies on Kemi or Penny's cast offs after round 5 to get into the final 2. Not obvious she gets many of those but she might.
She seems to have a far from easy path to the final 2 to me. She is currently 1.55-1.65 with Betfair to make the final. She was shorter an hour ago at about 1.45. I would say Rishi is almost nailed on for the final 2 and Penny is about Evens.
The question is whether Badenoch can overtake Truss and get into the final 3. Then it could be close between all 3 of them in the final round.
Yes. I'm doubtful and have traded out most of my bets on Kemi. Braverman has declared for Truss so it seems unlikely that Truss doesn't get at least half of Braverman's votes. In which case Kemi falls further behind Truss. And when TiT goes that doesn't seem an opportunity for Kemi to get enough votes to leapfrog Truss with most going to Rishi and/or Penny.
Give me some comfort that the Uk is not going to have to ration power this winter? I’m looking at Russian gas cuts in Europe and the Norwegians likely to increase supply to Europe to the detriment of the UK. And it has me worried.
Most places are ridiculously overheated in the winter in this country. I remember last winter having to constantly walk out of shops, cafes, etc to get some fresh air because the heating was on far too high. And a lot of establishments still had the heating on until the end of April which is just stupid. So there's a lot of energy to be saved in easy ways.
I don't see the parent comment, but the UK does have a particular issue - we have essentially no stored gas. If we get outbid on lng cargos, we can find ourselves running out very quickly.
The EU, by contrast, has a much worse external dependence, but they also have a buffer.
Why do we still have no storage? I didn't read the recent energy security bill, but I'd have expected that to be in it.
Our largest gas storage capacity, Rough, was closed in 2017.
Wasn’t needed they thought as with fracking, LNG and the pipelines from other countries we’d get cheap gas for the foreseeable. Yet another error in our energy policy.
By the way, I am British and I am entitled to post endless flatulent nonsense all about Britain on a British politics website
Why?
Because
"I hope to retire in various places, including the UK"
That's it. You, Britain, are number 8 on my list of "possible places to retire to", so here is my lecture on your disgusting politics, you awful people, just in case my first 7 retirement plans go wrong
You appear to be nursing a lot of hatred. Seek help.
This is easily solved. You are in America and have no intention of returning to Britain
Go onto the American version of PB.com. YOU LIVE IN AMERICA
Let us argue ourselves in our awful little country, which you loathe - and which you left with much relief - about the merits or otherwise of Brexit, or indeed anything else that concerns us; your opinion does not advance things
I genuinely don't understand this level of bad manners. I'm not joking. No fucking way would I intrude onto an American website and start lecturing them about their disgraceful independent American-ness and their vile hateful politics blah blah. I may THINK that, but I would never do it. And it rather exposes someone that thinks this is socially tolerable
You seem to loathe just as many Brits yourself, especially the young.
Indeed as @Gardenwalker is in much closer alignment to the majority of Britons who think Brexit a historic mistake, it is very likely that @Leon hates the majority of his country folk.
If you say so, but at the same time, the notion of Bregret becomes a sillier and more risible one as time marches on. We became an independent country when we left the EU. We joined many others in that regard, many smaller and with less advantages than we have in 'making it', and managing to do so with a lot less whining. So what is the actual problem? Let's get the eff on with it and stop whining for the tit when we're 8 years old.
We were of course an independent country throughout our membership of the EU.
Yes, just not in any meaningful sense of the word 'independent' or indeed 'country'.
...waits for a list of all those wonderful things we've been able to do since 31 Jan 2020 that we weren't able to do before...
Oh.
Vaccinate our population in a timely fashion.
Rubbish, vaccination was a country issue. Nothing to do with the EU or brexit.
The EU vaccine procurement was behind us. Not massively in the end, but definitely behind us. Of course, it was possible for EU countries not to be involved with their procurement (see Hungary), but there's no guarantee that we'd have gone our own route.
Most tellingly, every remainer in the land was warning that, if we didn’t join the EU scheme, we would get fewer vaccines, and later. They didn’t think it was nothing to do with Brexit at the time - they thought it was very closely related. Only when our scheme succeeded did the “nothing to do with Brexit” narrative take hold.
It hasn't taken hold. If it had, they wouldn't need to write moronically specious 'fact checking' articles about it.
You're the same guy who thinks that Russia didn't shoot down MH17; I feel you could probably do with a little more fact checking in your life.
I'm the guy that realises that 'fact checking' articles ceased to be such, and joined the ranks of 'articles' with their own editorial slant about 15 years ago. I find you posting an article from fullfact as if it proves something quite quaint.
Critically, the fullfact article tells you where you can look so you can check it yourself. I mean, literally with links to legislation.gov.uk. This is the difference between a reliable media source and your pro-Kremlin wank. The reliable articles tell you what they think and give you the citations for you to check for yourself.
To everyone else: not all media are the same. One of the Kremlin lines of the last few decades is peddle the lie that everyone is as bad as everyone else. That's not true, has never been true, and never will be true. There are deliberate manipulators, and there are people making an earnest run at the truth. Don't let them get away with turning you into a total cynic, because there is actually light in this world. Even in journalism.
Still on this are we.
Yes, definitely, because it really fucking matters. You reliably parrot the Kremlin line on things, and that troubles me. From passenger airlines being shot down to theatres full of families sheltering from bombs, and even on the unreliability of all media. It's a pattern, and I'm not the only one who has seen it.
Well, I'm happy to report that nothing in your own PB oeuvre, despite it being almost wholly deeply negative, misanthropic, and unpleasant, troubles me in the slightest. Because my good feeling doesn't depend on everyone else behaving (or even thinking it would appear) the way I want them to.
If you think about it, not only most welfare spend, but most of the health budget and indeed the *debt interest* is spent on the elderly or on paying for debts taken out in the past by the now-elderly.
Give me some comfort that the Uk is not going to have to ration power this winter? I’m looking at Russian gas cuts in Europe and the Norwegians likely to increase supply to Europe to the detriment of the UK. And it has me worried.
Most places are ridiculously overheated in the winter in this country. I remember last winter having to constantly walk out of shops, cafes, etc to get some fresh air because the heating was on far too high. And a lot of establishments still had the heating on until the end of April which is just stupid. So there's a lot of energy to be saved in easy ways.
I don't see the parent comment, but the UK does have a particular issue - we have essentially no stored gas. If we get outbid on lng cargos, we can find ourselves running out very quickly.
The EU, by contrast, has a much worse external dependence, but they also have a buffer.
Why do we still have no storage? I didn't read the recent energy security bill, but I'd have expected that to be in it.
Our largest gas storage capacity, Rough, was closed in 2017.
Wasn’t needed they thought as with fracking, LNG and the pipelines from other countries we’d get cheap gas for the foreseeable. Yet another error in our energy policy.
And yet surely any war gaming scenario would have suggested that our most likely foe would use energy scarcity as a weapon.
1. Many Tory MPs are sitting on relatively small majorities.
2. Many of the new Tory MPs come from a different background / upbringing from traditional Tory MPs.
My point? I think looking at this through the prism of 'traditional politics' is wrong. Many MPs will be thinking 'who gives me the best chance to keep my seat?' Truss doesn't, Badenoch could.
Suella has been eliminated and it is widely expected that the majority of her vote goes to Truss and most of the rest goes to Badenoch. So how many Braverman votes does Penny get? Maybe hardly any. Will she get any votes moving her way from her other rivals in round 3? Not obviously. Will she retain all or most of her own vote? Probably.
So, overall, unless someone drops out she may just tread water in round 3. And may possiblly get overtaken by Truss.
Then it's round 4. TiT has to go and his 32 votes (+/- changes from round 3) will be up for grabs. How many does Penny get? Most surely go to Rishi. Finally she relies on Kemi or Penny's cast offs after round 5 to get into the final 2. Not obvious she gets many of those but she might.
She seems to have a far from easy path to the final 2 to me. She is currently 1.55-1.65 with Betfair to make the final. She was shorter an hour ago at about 1.45. I would say Rishi is almost nailed on for the final 2 and Penny is about Evens.
The question is whether Badenoch can overtake Truss and get into the final 3. Then it could be close between all 3 of them in the final round.
I just cannot see it. I know she was only 15 votes behind, but there was definitely a push for 'the right' to swind behind Truss, and poor communicator or not the MPs know her, know she can handle a department, and she has had positive ratings from members.
Some queue jumper with 5 years in parliament, albeit being a decent performer, could they really be trusted to not only deliver in the post, but be relied upon to deliver what they want, when they dont know them so well?
Give me some comfort that the Uk is not going to have to ration power this winter? I’m looking at Russian gas cuts in Europe and the Norwegians likely to increase supply to Europe to the detriment of the UK. And it has me worried.
Not a bad time to buy power banks, solar panels, usb heated clothing. Camping gas or spirit stove, etc.
I’ve already done what I can. But there’s several million vulnerable households that rely on power to operate their boiler (no continuous power supply installed to the brains and / or fuel injection pump). And to cook and boil water. And to use their landlines. And quite a few that live in areas where private water companies haven’t bothered invested in backup generators at the pumping stations. How sure are we the cell phone network would be resilient to this? Because it wasn’t over a very wide area of Kent during the storm induced extended cuts earlier this year.
As a country we are far more reliant on electricity than we were in the 70s - 80s, when most of us last experienced regular power outages. I’ll bet loads of households now don’t have any candles or even matches (fewer smokers), no way of accessing info or sending messages without mains power (mobile coverage sketchy, landline phones now fancy mains digital handsets), no way of heating or cooking.
Are we seeing a similar episode of complacent neglect among government in preparing for a very foreseeable crisis, as per Jan - Mar 2020?
Sure we’re not going to see extended cuts lasting for days. But it’s easy to imagine repeated blackouts that end up costing lives due to lack of planning by households and government.
Edit:
I forgot petrol stations. The pumps don’t work without power of course. To add another inconvenience, if power gets rationed or the grid fails to match supply with demand.
I completely agree.
What I'm preparing for is rolling blackouts, the type where you're without power for a few hours or at worst a day, and what you need is to be able to charge your laptop and your phone, and maybe heat up a can of soup or boil a cup of tea. Plus a USB bank powered jacket so I won't get cold without the heating on.
I suspect that since natural gas is only about 44% of the uk grid, that's what we'd end up with in a worst case scenario (bearing in mind we also produce our own gas). Rolling outages of a few hours every day across pockets of the UK, to reduce demand on the grid.
But that's 24 hours or so max. If the situation somehow becomes dramatically worse than that, then it is as you describe above. No power to petrol pumps, people without the ability to cook for days, most people unable to remain connected to news due to reliance on the internet, etc. Society would break down fast.
The good news is I think because of our limited reliance on natural gas and the fact we are able to produce it, albeit not enough, the worst we are looking at is rolling blackouts, rather than total chaos.
Europe however - things could get ugly fast. And unfortunately that is how Putin ends up winning in Ukraine.
Europe has lots of stored gas - not enough to get them through the winter, but you could cut Russian exports to zero, and they would probably make it to end November before they ran out. They also have some production of their own, and have pipeline imports from Norway and North Africa.
Apologies for being gloomy, but I think even if we don't see rolling blackouts this winter (what happens after November, when stored gas runs out?) the sheer cost of gas imports from elsewhere will cause the west to buckle and fold.
Once the first stories of pensioners facing the choice between heating or eating or, god forbid, freezing to death in their homes, how long before the narrative becomes "a conflict in a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing."
Before it happens hopefully. There is no way that British lives (especially civilians) should be sacrificed for some square miles of Donbass. No way no how.
I'd personally be happy to put on an extra layer and maybe do without power for a few hours a day if it means repulsing Putin's fascist war machine.
Whether or not the democracies of Europe are made of such stern stuff we shall soon see.
Well I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I certainly wouldn't. How many layers I choose to wear is entirely my affair, and in a free country where I pay taxes, I expect that choice, whether it accords with who the PM du jour wants a photo opportunity with or not. The whole thing is an utter absurdity.
You've made your views on that quite clear.
I think we have a moral duty to stand up to fascists, and if that means going without, so be it.
A couple of hours without heating every day is nothing compared to the hell of the massacres in Bucha, the indiscriminate cluster bombs, the mass deportations etc.
We didn't stand up to genuine fascists when they ruled Spain until the 1970's, and I am entirely comfortable with that fact. You look after the security and wellbeing of your own people before you prance about the world stage. That's the basics of being a Government. Otherwise what's the point?
By the 1970s, even the Spanish fascists had stopped large-scale bombing of civilians and, besides, their actions had no impact on overall European security.
The key issue - post the first debate - is not now whether Kemi overtakes Truss. It’s whether Truss overtakes Penny.
Penny is on the slide and Tugendhat votes will now be more inclined to head toward Rishi.
In turn that puts Penny under pressure from a consolidated push for Truss from the right.
I'm curious to get into the mind of an MP who hasn't yet voted for Truss deciding now to switch to her. What have they seen in the last couple of days that will make them say "yes, I'm getting on board THIS train right now"?
Well, essentially, they’ve seen Braverman exit and they are not convinced about Kemi.
If you think about it, not only most welfare spend, but most of the health budget and indeed the *debt interest* is spent on the elderly or on paying for debts taken out in the past by the now-elderly.
After you take those out, there’s f-all left.
By "debts taken out in the past by the now-elderly", I take it you mean Gordon Brown and his off-balance sheet £100bn or so?
I suggest you have rather a deep and unjustified prejudice against the "elderly".
As for "most of the Health Budget" being spent on the elderly, that is just BS, which is why I keep pointing out the kneejerk prejudice against older people visible in some of the more antediluvian corners of PB.
If you think about it, not only most welfare spend, but most of the health budget and indeed the *debt interest* is spent on the elderly or on paying for debts taken out in the past by the now-elderly.
After you take those out, there’s f-all left.
By "debts taken out in the past by the now-elderly", I take it you mean Gordon Brown and his off-balance sheet £100bn or so?
I suggest you have rather a deep and unjustified prejudice against the "elderly".
As for "most of the Health Budget" being spent on the elderly, that is just BS, which is why I keep pointing out the kneejerk prejudice against older people visible in some of the more antediluvian corners of PB.
By the way, I am British and I am entitled to post endless flatulent nonsense all about Britain on a British politics website
Why?
Because
"I hope to retire in various places, including the UK"
That's it. You, Britain, are number 8 on my list of "possible places to retire to", so here is my lecture on your disgusting politics, you awful people, just in case my first 7 retirement plans go wrong
You appear to be nursing a lot of hatred. Seek help.
This is easily solved. You are in America and have no intention of returning to Britain
Go onto the American version of PB.com. YOU LIVE IN AMERICA
Let us argue ourselves in our awful little country, which you loathe - and which you left with much relief - about the merits or otherwise of Brexit, or indeed anything else that concerns us; your opinion does not advance things
I genuinely don't understand this level of bad manners. I'm not joking. No fucking way would I intrude onto an American website and start lecturing them about their disgraceful independent American-ness and their vile hateful politics blah blah. I may THINK that, but I would never do it. And it rather exposes someone that thinks this is socially tolerable
You seem to loathe just as many Brits yourself, especially the young.
Indeed as @Gardenwalker is in much closer alignment to the majority of Britons who think Brexit a historic mistake, it is very likely that @Leon hates the majority of his country folk.
If you say so, but at the same time, the notion of Bregret becomes a sillier and more risible one as time marches on. We became an independent country when we left the EU. We joined many others in that regard, many smaller and with less advantages than we have in 'making it', and managing to do so with a lot less whining. So what is the actual problem? Let's get the eff on with it and stop whining for the tit when we're 8 years old.
We were of course an independent country throughout our membership of the EU.
Yes, just not in any meaningful sense of the word 'independent' or indeed 'country'.
...waits for a list of all those wonderful things we've been able to do since 31 Jan 2020 that we weren't able to do before...
Oh.
Vaccinate our population in a timely fashion.
Rubbish, vaccination was a country issue. Nothing to do with the EU or brexit.
The EU vaccine procurement was behind us. Not massively in the end, but definitely behind us. Of course, it was possible for EU countries not to be involved with their procurement (see Hungary), but there's no guarantee that we'd have gone our own route.
Most tellingly, every remainer in the land was warning that, if we didn’t join the EU scheme, we would get fewer vaccines, and later. They didn’t think it was nothing to do with Brexit at the time - they thought it was very closely related. Only when our scheme succeeded did the “nothing to do with Brexit” narrative take hold.
It hasn't taken hold. If it had, they wouldn't need to write moronically specious 'fact checking' articles about it.
You're the same guy who thinks that Russia didn't shoot down MH17; I feel you could probably do with a little more fact checking in your life.
I'm the guy that realises that 'fact checking' articles ceased to be such, and joined the ranks of 'articles' with their own editorial slant about 15 years ago. I find you posting an article from fullfact as if it proves something quite quaint.
Critically, the fullfact article tells you where you can look so you can check it yourself. I mean, literally with links to legislation.gov.uk. This is the difference between a reliable media source and your pro-Kremlin wank. The reliable articles tell you what they think and give you the citations for you to check for yourself.
To everyone else: not all media are the same. One of the Kremlin lines of the last few decades is peddle the lie that everyone is as bad as everyone else. That's not true, has never been true, and never will be true. There are deliberate manipulators, and there are people making an earnest run at the truth. Don't let them get away with turning you into a total cynic, because there is actually light in this world. Even in journalism.
Still on this are we.
Yes, definitely, because it really fucking matters. You reliably parrot the Kremlin line on things, and that troubles me. From passenger airlines being shot down to theatres full of families sheltering from bombs, and even on the unreliability of all media. It's a pattern, and I'm not the only one who has seen it.
Well, I'm happy to report that nothing in your own PB oeuvre, despite it being almost wholly deeply negative, misanthropic, and unpleasant, troubles me in the slightest. Because my good feeling doesn't depend on everyone else behaving (or even thinking it would appear) the way I want them to.
"oeuvre"
French is good for vowels, but bad for scrabble scores.
Why is Leon on this thread - is he unbanned?
Or are naughty people taking advantage of the fact that he cannot answer back, for once?
I wonder if Sunak banked on being the Biden of this contest. There were plenty of people who wanted anybody but Biden, they even looked at complete unknowns and old reactionaries, but in the end enough people knew he was the best bet they had to win with the public.
Sunak lacks the fear factor of making the wrong choice though - at worst you'd end up with Keir, who is not that scary a prospect.
Important things first: dixiedean - Congratulations on your Go achievement. It's a wonderful game and even, some think, may have political/military lessons. (Many years ago, I recall looking over a book which analyzed Mao's strategy in the Chinese civil war using Go. I foudn the analysis intersting, but didn't know enough Chinese history to decide how useful the analogy was.)
The key issue - post the first debate - is not now whether Kemi overtakes Truss. It’s whether Truss overtakes Penny.
Penny is on the slide and Tugendhat votes will now be more inclined to head toward Rishi.
In turn that puts Penny under pressure from a consolidated push for Truss from the right.
I'm curious to get into the mind of an MP who hasn't yet voted for Truss deciding now to switch to her. What have they seen in the last couple of days that will make them say "yes, I'm getting on board THIS train right now"?
There is no equivalent to PB in the US, because political betting is so restricted here. As is betting in general. For example, just recently, the Indian casinos, which have most of the betting market here in Washington state, finally began taking sports bets.
(Nevada is the great exception on sports betting, but, other than on horse racing, there just isn't much legal betting in the rest of the United States, as compared to Britain.)
I wonder if Sunak banked on being the Biden of this contest. There were plenty of people who wanted anybody but Biden, they even looked at complete unknowns and old reactionaries, but in the end enough people knew he was the best bet they had to win with the public.
Sunak lacks the fear factor of making the wrong choice though - at worst you'd end up with Keir, who is not that scary a prospect.
There is no equivalent to PB in the US, because political betting is so restricted here.
Poor devils.
I think I recall a tongue in cheek piece on the Daily Show showing some uninterested public get much more invested, and actually finding out things about politicians, if they were allowed to bet on the outcome.
More seriously, I am somewhat surprised it is still so restricted given money and politics otherwise seems pretty loose.
Practically every time Leon comes onto the board the tone deteriorates and it he gets abusive within a few exchanges. It's not a one-off it's every bloody night.
Bloody good laugh though. You'd miss him if he went.
But clearly being a bit of a willy atm, should be fine after a bit of drunk tank.
I wonder if Sunak banked on being the Biden of this contest. There were plenty of people who wanted anybody but Biden, they even looked at complete unknowns and old reactionaries, but in the end enough people knew he was the best bet they had to win with the public.
Sunak lacks the fear factor of making the wrong choice though - at worst you'd end up with Keir, who is not that scary a prospect.
Good post
Don't think so. Biden's appeal was that he was known. Very known. He had been around since the year dot and was known as old skool, decent, proper 'I'm from Scranton' working class. His very presence harked back to an America that was passing.
He was the guy who would work across the aisle and get people together. He was the guy who was Obama's VP. Loyal. Decent. Emotional. The guy who had suffered loss and bereavement.
On every Amtrack carriage he ever rode the guys serving the coffee and punching the tickets had spoken at length to him about their lives and families.
Kemi’s contention that welfare starts at home is cool.
I look forward to her manifesto announcing that pensioners must now live off the equity in their large, empty family homes.
If any of these contestants will do it it's her. I just hope she has the sense to say it after she's PM.
I have traded out of a small amount of my insane long on her at these prices but keeping most of it. I'm green on anyone on next PM market as it's been free money for years, but she pays for the entirety of my wife and I's fortnight trip to Zambia in a few months.
She has a nice arse too btw if you haven't noticed and that should get the colonel mustard part of the tory membership vote.
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynnsocial · 4h Betting markets are picking up on a rush to @KemiBadenoch - she's gone from 30-1 to 12-1 today and still steaming in. Truss drifting all the time. K can do this.
There is no equivalent to PB in the US, because political betting is so restricted here.
Poor devils.
I think I recall a tongue in cheek piece on the Daily Show showing some uninterested public get much more invested, and actually finding out things about politicians, if they were allowed to bet on the outcome.
More seriously, I am somewhat surprised it is still so restricted given money and politics otherwise seems pretty loose.
US restrictions and outright bans on gambling, in particular gambling organized as a business, are longstanding part of our Puritan heritage. Major exception parts of 18th century was Louisiana, which did NOT help reputation of gambling at all, no sir.
As noted, Nevada was a notable exception. Another exception was horse racing, permitted at a few tracks scattered around some of the less puritanical jurisdictions in the US.
At the same time a HUGE amount of illegal and quasi-legal, ranging from numbers racket in Black ghettos to high-stakes poker games on transcontinental express trains. Just about every community in America has a bookie taking sports bets, while pull-tabs were common in bars, and slot machines in private clubs.
Major change began when states began looking for creative ways of raising revenue without raising taxes. Which was impetus for allowing Las Vegas-style casino gaming in Atlantic City, and creation of state lotteries. As this was developing, Native Americans were able to get into the act with passage of federal law authorizing recognized Indian tribes to open & operate casinos on tribal lands IF the state they were located in sanctioned gaming.
Result today is wide-spread proliferation of legal gambling, under broad federal framework, and with patchwork of state and local laws and practices. All VERY different from UK.
Re US gambling, should add that many states specifically ban betting on elections. Due I believe to general disrepute or outright illegality of gambling PLUS specific concern with potential for election corruption.
If you think about it, not only most welfare spend, but most of the health budget and indeed the *debt interest* is spent on the elderly or on paying for debts taken out in the past by the now-elderly.
After you take those out, there’s f-all left.
By "debts taken out in the past by the now-elderly", I take it you mean Gordon Brown and his off-balance sheet £100bn or so?
I suggest you have rather a deep and unjustified prejudice against the "elderly".
As for "most of the Health Budget" being spent on the elderly, that is just BS, which is why I keep pointing out the kneejerk prejudice against older people visible in some of the more antediluvian corners of PB.
It really is time for some of our more unthinking, evidence-free members to wake up and smell some coffee.
It is not that long since you denied we faced an increasing demographic burden. I think you have your head in the sand.
Why, by the way, are you using 85 as your cut-off? The current pension age is 66.
Thanks for the quick reply.
On your first point, I think you unintentionally misrepresent what I said. I pointed out that the UK is (with France close behind) about the best positioned with respect to demographic burden in Europe - as demonstrated by median age as a metric.
Very different to "denying an increasing demographic burden". As a % of GDP it may well in fact be reducing. I have not gone into the data.
The context was a statement that the UK is in such a dire position that we need to implement French policies.
Re US gambling, should add that many states specifically ban betting on elections. Due I believe to general disrepute or outright illegality of gambling PLUS specific concern with potential for election corruption.
If you think about it, not only most welfare spend, but most of the health budget and indeed the *debt interest* is spent on the elderly or on paying for debts taken out in the past by the now-elderly.
After you take those out, there’s f-all left.
By "debts taken out in the past by the now-elderly", I take it you mean Gordon Brown and his off-balance sheet £100bn or so?
I suggest you have rather a deep and unjustified prejudice against the "elderly".
As for "most of the Health Budget" being spent on the elderly, that is just BS, which is why I keep pointing out the kneejerk prejudice against older people visible in some of the more antediluvian corners of PB.
It really is time for some of our more unthinking, evidence-free members to wake up and smell some coffee.
It is not that long since you denied we faced an increasing demographic burden. I think you have your head in the sand.
Why, by the way, are you using 85 as your cut-off? The current pension age is 66.
Thanks for the quick reply.
On your first point, I think you unintentionally misrepresent what I said. I pointed out that the UK is (with France close behind) about the best positioned with respect to demographic burden in Europe - as demonstrated by median age as a metric.
Very different to "denying an increasing demographic burden". As a % of GDP it may well in fact be reducing. I have not gone into the data.
The context was a statement that the UK is in such a dire position that we need to implement French policies.
I've no idea why people make such an obviously weak argument, other than as a fig leaf for quite nasty prejudice.
On your second point, old people these days are classified as "Youngest Old" from 65, "Middle Old" from 75, and "Oldest Old" from 85.
Since we are talking about "elderly", implying dependence and 'lack of utility', 85 seemed appropriate.
If you want your 'most of the health money spent on them' to apply, you will end up with "elderly" starting at about 55-58.
Incidentally, there is currently a programme to remove the term "elderly" from the NHS as a pejorative. Bizarre imo.
Trying to differentiate between shades of retired people doesn't really make much sense.
The question is whether people are productive (ie working) or dependants (ie not).
Today's retirees are a burden upon the working whether they're 65 or 95, it doesn't make much difference. This demographic burden was known about decades ago and the most selfish generation of all time has only made the burden worse. Trying to claim that today's retirees aren't a burden because although they're retired they're not elderly is beyond bizarre.
If your argument is that people in their sixties are not elderly, then maybe they should get a job, and stop getting any pensions?
If you think about it, not only most welfare spend, but most of the health budget and indeed the *debt interest* is spent on the elderly or on paying for debts taken out in the past by the now-elderly.
After you take those out, there’s f-all left.
By "debts taken out in the past by the now-elderly", I take it you mean Gordon Brown and his off-balance sheet £100bn or so?
I suggest you have rather a deep and unjustified prejudice against the "elderly".
As for "most of the Health Budget" being spent on the elderly, that is just BS, which is why I keep pointing out the kneejerk prejudice against older people visible in some of the more antediluvian corners of PB.
It really is time for some of our more unthinking, evidence-free members to wake up and smell some coffee.
It is not that long since you denied we faced an increasing demographic burden. I think you have your head in the sand.
Why, by the way, are you using 85 as your cut-off? The current pension age is 66.
Thanks for the quick reply.
On your first point, I think you unintentionally misrepresent what I said. I pointed out that the UK is (with France close behind) about the best positioned with respect to demographic burden in Europe - as demonstrated by median age as a metric.
Very different to "denying an increasing demographic burden". As a % of GDP it may well in fact be reducing. I have not gone into the data.
The context was a statement that the UK is in such a dire position that we need to implement French policies.
Comments
It wouldn't be denying us a choice, we never had a choice, not in the manner you seem to be describing.
I think we have a moral duty to stand up to fascists, and if that means going without, so be it.
A couple of hours without heating every day is nothing compared to the hell of the massacres in Bucha, the indiscriminate cluster bombs, the mass deportations etc.
The EU, by contrast, has a much worse external dependence, but they also have a buffer.
Some queue jumper with 5 years in parliament, albeit being a decent performer, could they really be trusted to not only deliver in the post, but be relied upon to deliver what they want, when they dont know them so well?
Penny is on the slide and Tugendhat votes will now be more inclined to head toward Rishi.
In turn that puts Penny under pressure from a consolidated push for Truss from the right.
I look forward to her manifesto announcing that pensioners must now live off the equity in their large, empty family homes.
Wasn’t needed they thought as with fracking, LNG and the pipelines from other countries we’d get cheap gas for the foreseeable. Yet another error in our energy policy.
After you take those out, there’s f-all left.
Britain (not uniquely of course!) caught napping.
1. Many Tory MPs are sitting on relatively small majorities.
2. Many of the new Tory MPs come from a different background / upbringing from traditional Tory MPs.
My point? I think looking at this through the prism of 'traditional politics' is wrong. Many MPs will be thinking 'who gives me the best chance to keep my seat?' Truss doesn't, Badenoch could.
I suggest you have rather a deep and unjustified prejudice against the "elderly".
As for "most of the Health Budget" being spent on the elderly, that is just BS, which is why I keep pointing out the kneejerk prejudice against older people visible in some of the more antediluvian corners of PB.
The % spent on over 85s is actually 10%, as documented in this FullFact rebuttal of the claim that they take 55% of the budget:
https://fullfact.org/health/how-much-nhs-budget-spent-people-over-85/
It really is time for some of our more evidence-free members to wake up and smell some coffee.
Why, by the way, are you using 85 as your cut-off? The current pension age is 66.
Why is Leon on this thread - is he unbanned?
Or are naughty people taking advantage of the fact that he cannot answer back, for once?
Sunak lacks the fear factor of making the wrong choice though - at worst you'd end up with Keir, who is not that scary a prospect.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/16/woke-dance-school-drops-ballet-auditions-white-elitist/
Leeds dance school drops ballet from auditions as its "contentious nature" is rooted in "white European ideas"
I would add that the new light bulbs are so efficient that I haven't felt any need, in recent years, to keep candles around for emergency lighting.
(Nevada is the great exception on sports betting, but, other than on horse racing, there just isn't much legal betting in the rest of the United States, as compared to Britain.)
Sunak 2.64
Mordaunt 2.84
Truss 6.8
Badenoch 12
Tugendhat 210
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.160663234
I think I recall a tongue in cheek piece on the Daily Show showing some uninterested public get much more invested, and actually finding out things about politicians, if they were allowed to bet on the outcome.
More seriously, I am somewhat surprised it is still so restricted given money and politics otherwise seems pretty loose.
Warning: You may be shocked by the limits.
(People do, of course, make political bets with other individuals. For example, I once won a cup of coffee that way.)
But clearly being a bit of a willy atm, should be fine after a bit of drunk tank.
He was the guy who would work across the aisle and get people together. He was the guy who was Obama's VP. Loyal. Decent. Emotional. The guy who had suffered loss and bereavement.
On every Amtrack carriage he ever rode the guys serving the coffee and punching the tickets had spoken at length to him about their lives and families.
How on earth is any of this Sunak??
I have traded out of a small amount of my insane long on her at these prices but keeping most of it. I'm green on anyone on next PM market as it's been free money for years, but she pays for the entirety of my wife and I's fortnight trip to Zambia in a few months.
She has a nice arse too btw if you haven't noticed and that should get the colonel mustard part of the tory membership vote.
Patrick O'Flynn
@oflynnsocial
·
4h
Betting markets are picking up on a rush to
@KemiBadenoch
- she's gone from 30-1 to 12-1 today and still steaming in. Truss drifting all the time. K can do this.
As noted, Nevada was a notable exception. Another exception was horse racing, permitted at a few tracks scattered around some of the less puritanical jurisdictions in the US.
At the same time a HUGE amount of illegal and quasi-legal, ranging from numbers racket in Black ghettos to high-stakes poker games on transcontinental express trains. Just about every community in America has a bookie taking sports bets, while pull-tabs were common in bars, and slot machines in private clubs.
Major change began when states began looking for creative ways of raising revenue without raising taxes. Which was impetus for allowing Las Vegas-style casino gaming in Atlantic City, and creation of state lotteries. As this was developing, Native Americans were able to get into the act with passage of federal law authorizing recognized Indian tribes to open & operate casinos on tribal lands IF the state they were located in sanctioned gaming.
Result today is wide-spread proliferation of legal gambling, under broad federal framework, and with patchwork of state and local laws and practices. All VERY different from UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2654141
On your first point, I think you unintentionally misrepresent what I said. I pointed out that the UK is (with France close behind) about the best positioned with respect to demographic burden in Europe - as demonstrated by median age as a metric.
Very different to "denying an increasing demographic burden". As a % of GDP it may well in fact be reducing. I have not gone into the data.
The context was a statement that the UK is in such a dire position that we need to implement French policies.
The reality is that our existing policies, including raising state pension age to be 4 years higher than France, have placed us in a better position. Further we spend less than 6% of GDP on state pensions and pensioner benefits, rather than the more than 13% spent by France. Overall we are in a far stronger position.
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/pension-spending/indicator/english_a041f4ef-en
I've no idea why people make such an obviously weak argument, other than as a fig leaf for quite nasty prejudice.
On your second point, old people these days are classified as "Youngest Old" from 65, "Middle Old" from 75, and "Oldest Old" from 85.
Since we are talking about "elderly", implying dependence and 'lack of utility', 85 seemed appropriate.
If you want your 'most of the health money spent on them' to apply, you will end up with "elderly" starting at about 55-58.
Incidentally, there is currently a programme to remove the term "elderly" from the NHS as a pejorative. Bizarre imo.
The question is whether people are productive (ie working) or dependants (ie not).
Today's retirees are a burden upon the working whether they're 65 or 95, it doesn't make much difference. This demographic burden was known about decades ago and the most selfish generation of all time has only made the burden worse. Trying to claim that today's retirees aren't a burden because although they're retired they're not elderly is beyond bizarre.
If your argument is that people in their sixties are not elderly, then maybe they should get a job, and stop getting any pensions?
Doing better than the market is scant consolation to the people who have lost their savings.
2.7 Penny Mordaunt 37%
6.4 Liz Truss 16%
10.5 Kemi Badenoch 10%
95 Tom Tugendhat
110 Dominic Raab
To make the final two
1.08 Rishi Sunak 93%
1.55 Penny Mordaunt 65%
3.2 Liz Truss 31%
7.2 Kemi Badenoch 14%
100 Tom Tugendhat
Rory McIlroy and Viktor Hovland take a four-shot lead into the final round of the 150th Open Championship
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/62192705