Getting the tone of an ad completely wrong – politicalbetting.com

MISTY said:

ydoethur said:

MISTY said:

DavidL said:

MISTY said:

The most astonishing figure of the day is German producer prices. Up more than five per cent on the month. Up more than thirty five per cent on the year!

Anybody remember what happened the last time the Germans had rampant inflation....?

Wheelbarrow sales went through the roof. But that was before contactless.

We can only imagine the atmosphere at what remains of the Bundesbank. Inflationary control was their iron rule.

They refused point blank to cut rates when Ken Clark went cap in hand to them during the EMS crisis.

Do you mean Norman Lamont?

Lamont was chancellor, indeed, but I think I remember the Bundesbank guy saying it was Clark who actually appeared before him in person.

Clark become chancellor later in the parliament, and very good he was, too.

IshmaelZ said:

Stuartinromford said:

MarqueeMark said:

Pulpstar said:

MattW said:

rottenborough said:

Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
I see Rishi has joined Liz in highlighting the scourge of solar panels on our precious farmland. We have 23 million acres of farmland. Even if we quintuple solar output (the govt's target), it would take up roughly 1/200th of it. Also you can usually still farm on the land!

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1560538139730509824

===

More evidence that ageing Tory membership don't want to deal with the future.

I think this fails the Occam's Razor test - at least for a long time.

Colvile is proposing 175 square miles of solar farms on farmland. It fails the "necessary" test.

We should not even be touching that - with the impact on food production, recreation etc - until we have used all suitable available large roofs, car parks etc - which are situated in conirbations where the electricity is actually needed.

Amazon have just installed 20,000 sqm of solar panels on top of their Tilbury warehouse. That alone is 2 Hectares, and they have 20 fulfilment centres, just for one example.

In the UK we have something like 16 sqm of space in warehouses over 100k sqft, which will be divided by perhaps 1.x to get the roof area. That's just in the warehousing sector.

We may not need to use farmland at all.


https://www.cambridgeshirechamber.co.uk/downloadlibrary/UKWA Savills.pdf

Sheep are quite happy to wonder in and around solar panels.

Wondering "WTF? Give me some proper pasture, not a place that has been engineered by computers to absorb as much of the grass-growing sunlight as it possible...."

The sheep are probably glad of the shade on hot days.

As is the grass- it grows best around 20 degrees, and exposure to full summer sun takes it way beyond that.

Light is far from the only limiting factor for photosynthesis- otherwise houseplants wouldn't be happy.

The people who don't like solar farms are those who either
a) want to discredit solar power full stop, or
b) think it spoils the view from the kitchen of Ye Olde Farmhouse or on their country walks.

And whilst I'm not full-on Libertarian "do what you like with your land", you need better arguments than that.

Again: I look at a fairfew of these things. What you claim may happen in foreign parts, not here. They are all at ground level and fenced like Colditz.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MISTY said:

ydoethur said:

MISTY said:

DavidL said:

MISTY said:

The most astonishing figure of the day is German producer prices. Up more than five per cent on the month. Up more than thirty five per cent on the year!

Anybody remember what happened the last time the Germans had rampant inflation....?

Wheelbarrow sales went through the roof. But that was before contactless.

We can only imagine the atmosphere at what remains of the Bundesbank. Inflationary control was their iron rule.

They refused point blank to cut rates when Ken Clark went cap in hand to them during the EMS crisis.

Do you mean Norman Lamont?

Lamont was chancellor, indeed, but I think I remember the Bundesbank guy saying it was Clark who actually appeared before him in person.

Clark become chancellor later in the parliament, and very good he was, too.

Ken Clarke became Chancellor in a government with no economic policy at all after the ERM debacle.

JosiasJessop said:

BTW:

Is he plural of 'roof' roofs or rooves?

I was taught 'rooves', but it always looks wrong to me when written, but better when spoken.

Leon said:

That was a public service announcement

IshmaelZ said:

Stuartinromford said:

MarqueeMark said:

Pulpstar said:

MattW said:

rottenborough said:

Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
I see Rishi has joined Liz in highlighting the scourge of solar panels on our precious farmland. We have 23 million acres of farmland. Even if we quintuple solar output (the govt's target), it would take up roughly 1/200th of it. Also you can usually still farm on the land!

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1560538139730509824

===

More evidence that ageing Tory membership don't want to deal with the future.

I think this fails the Occam's Razor test - at least for a long time.

Colvile is proposing 175 square miles of solar farms on farmland. It fails the "necessary" test.

We should not even be touching that - with the impact on food production, recreation etc - until we have used all suitable available large roofs, car parks etc - which are situated in conirbations where the electricity is actually needed.

Amazon have just installed 20,000 sqm of solar panels on top of their Tilbury warehouse. That alone is 2 Hectares, and they have 20 fulfilment centres, just for one example.

In the UK we have something like 16 sqm of space in warehouses over 100k sqft, which will be divided by perhaps 1.x to get the roof area. That's just in the warehousing sector.

We may not need to use farmland at all.


https://www.cambridgeshirechamber.co.uk/downloadlibrary/UKWA Savills.pdf

Sheep are quite happy to wonder in and around solar panels.

Wondering "WTF? Give me some proper pasture, not a place that has been engineered by computers to absorb as much of the grass-growing sunlight as it possible...."

The sheep are probably glad of the shade on hot days.

As is the grass- it grows best around 20 degrees, and exposure to full summer sun takes it way beyond that.

Light is far from the only limiting factor for photosynthesis- otherwise houseplants wouldn't be happy.

The people who don't like solar farms are those who either
a) want to discredit solar power full stop, or
b) think it spoils the view from the kitchen of Ye Olde Farmhouse or on their country walks.

And whilst I'm not full-on Libertarian "do what you like with your land", you need better arguments than that.

Again: I look at a fairfew of these things. What you claim may happen in foreign parts, not here. They are all at ground level and fenced like Colditz.

carnforth said:

IshmaelZ said:

Stuartinromford said:

MarqueeMark said:

Pulpstar said:

MattW said:

rottenborough said:

Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
I see Rishi has joined Liz in highlighting the scourge of solar panels on our precious farmland. We have 23 million acres of farmland. Even if we quintuple solar output (the govt's target), it would take up roughly 1/200th of it. Also you can usually still farm on the land!

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1560538139730509824

===

More evidence that ageing Tory membership don't want to deal with the future.

I think this fails the Occam's Razor test - at least for a long time.

Colvile is proposing 175 square miles of solar farms on farmland. It fails the "necessary" test.

We should not even be touching that - with the impact on food production, recreation etc - until we have used all suitable available large roofs, car parks etc - which are situated in conirbations where the electricity is actually needed.

Amazon have just installed 20,000 sqm of solar panels on top of their Tilbury warehouse. That alone is 2 Hectares, and they have 20 fulfilment centres, just for one example.

In the UK we have something like 16 sqm of space in warehouses over 100k sqft, which will be divided by perhaps 1.x to get the roof area. That's just in the warehousing sector.

We may not need to use farmland at all.


https://www.cambridgeshirechamber.co.uk/downloadlibrary/UKWA Savills.pdf

Sheep are quite happy to wonder in and around solar panels.

Wondering "WTF? Give me some proper pasture, not a place that has been engineered by computers to absorb as much of the grass-growing sunlight as it possible...."

The sheep are probably glad of the shade on hot days.

As is the grass- it grows best around 20 degrees, and exposure to full summer sun takes it way beyond that.

Light is far from the only limiting factor for photosynthesis- otherwise houseplants wouldn't be happy.

The people who don't like solar farms are those who either
a) want to discredit solar power full stop, or
b) think it spoils the view from the kitchen of Ye Olde Farmhouse or on their country walks.

And whilst I'm not full-on Libertarian "do what you like with your land", you need better arguments than that.

Again: I look at a fairfew of these things. What you claim may happen in foreign parts, not here. They are all at ground level and fenced like Colditz.

This report has some good pictures, including outbuildings and fences required:

https://solargrazing.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Solar-Sheep-REPORT.pdf

Foxy said:

Leon said:

Outside PB and Twitter no one cares about Brexit. It’s the major issue for about 5-10% of the population - and that is falling

It really is a harvest of misery to care passionately about something - Rejoin - that is vanishingly unlikely in the lifetime of anyone here

Don’t do it

On the contrary.

Polling for Rejoin is very strong. No major party in England will be proposing it in their manifesto for GE 2024, but it cannot be ignored forever.

Sooner or later the fly encrusted unflushable turd of Brexit will be dealt with.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IshmaelZ said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

rottenborough said:

Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
I see Rishi has joined Liz in highlighting the scourge of solar panels on our precious farmland. We have 23 million acres of farmland. Even if we quintuple solar output (the govt's target), it would take up roughly 1/200th of it. Also you can usually still farm on the land!

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1560538139730509824

===

More evidence that ageing Tory membership don't want to deal with the future.

I think this fails the Occam's Razor test - at least for a long time.

Colvile is proposing 175 square miles of solar farms on farmland. It fails the "necessary" test.

We should not even be touching that - with the impact on food production, recreation etc - until we have used all suitable available large roofs, car parks etc - which are situated in conirbations where the electricity is actually needed.

Amazon have just installed 20,000 sqm of solar panels on top of their Tilbury warehouse. That alone is 2 Hectares, and they have 20 fulfilment centres, just for one example.

In the UK we have something like 16 sqm of space in warehouses over 100k sqft, which will be divided by perhaps 1.x to get the roof area. That's just in the warehousing sector.

We may not need to use farmland at all.


https://www.cambridgeshirechamber.co.uk/downloadlibrary/UKWA Savills.pdf

Rooftops, especially if they're not South-facing, may not always be the best option though.

But surely it comes down to personal choice? If a firm like Amazon wants to install solar then that should be their choice and they should be able to do so.

If a farmer wants to install solar, then that should be their choice, and why should they be denied that choice while Amazon get to choose to do so?

I'd imagine it is farmers who have been lobbying Rishi and Liz to support agriculture so they do not need to plant solar panels.

Absolutely not. Remember this is pitched at the tory membership only. It's nimbies

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/20628464.controversial-plans-ramsden-solar-farm-withdrawn-days-planning-meeting/

Actually short sighted of them, because at least solar is low profile and once a farm is installed, that's that land safe for 40 years

You think farmers in rural constituencies (where the hustings started) are not Conservative members? That they are not worried about the loss of CAP subsidies and the impact of trade deals increasing competition from Australia and in future America? They are not complaining about solar panels, they are complaining (or even threatening) that they may be forced into them if traditional agriculture dies.

BartholomewRoberts said:

IshmaelZ said:

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/20628464.controversial-plans-ramsden-solar-farm-withdrawn-days-planning-meeting/

What the Rishi move is really all about. Further evidence of how shit he is at politics and how good Liz is (if not at anything else).

Agrivoltaics (sheepies n crops co existing with panels) is a complete red herring, because it doesn't happen here. Possibly great in theory, say in countries where crops benefit from shade over noon, but depends on panels being at head height. They are all at ground level here.

So yes, objected to by contemptible NIMBY scum objecting to "views", not the farmer with the land.

NIMBY fuckwits really are a pox upon this country.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IshmaelZ said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

rottenborough said:

Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
I see Rishi has joined Liz in highlighting the scourge of solar panels on our precious farmland. We have 23 million acres of farmland. Even if we quintuple solar output (the govt's target), it would take up roughly 1/200th of it. Also you can usually still farm on the land!

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1560538139730509824

===

More evidence that ageing Tory membership don't want to deal with the future.

I think this fails the Occam's Razor test - at least for a long time.

Colvile is proposing 175 square miles of solar farms on farmland. It fails the "necessary" test.

We should not even be touching that - with the impact on food production, recreation etc - until we have used all suitable available large roofs, car parks etc - which are situated in conirbations where the electricity is actually needed.

Amazon have just installed 20,000 sqm of solar panels on top of their Tilbury warehouse. That alone is 2 Hectares, and they have 20 fulfilment centres, just for one example.

In the UK we have something like 16 sqm of space in warehouses over 100k sqft, which will be divided by perhaps 1.x to get the roof area. That's just in the warehousing sector.

We may not need to use farmland at all.


https://www.cambridgeshirechamber.co.uk/downloadlibrary/UKWA Savills.pdf

Rooftops, especially if they're not South-facing, may not always be the best option though.

But surely it comes down to personal choice? If a firm like Amazon wants to install solar then that should be their choice and they should be able to do so.

If a farmer wants to install solar, then that should be their choice, and why should they be denied that choice while Amazon get to choose to do so?

I'd imagine it is farmers who have been lobbying Rishi and Liz to support agriculture so they do not need to plant solar panels.

Absolutely not. Remember this is pitched at the tory membership only. It's nimbies

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/20628464.controversial-plans-ramsden-solar-farm-withdrawn-days-planning-meeting/

Actually short sighted of them, because at least solar is low profile and once a farm is installed, that's that land safe for 40 years

You think farmers in rural constituencies (where the hustings started) are not Conservative members? That they are not worried about the loss of CAP subsidies and the impact of trade deals increasing competition from Australia and in future America? They are not complaining about solar panels, they are complaining (or even threatening) that they may be forced into them if traditional agriculture dies.

Andy_JS said:

The other day I said you could put solar panels on warehouses, factories, industrial estates, etc. You don't need to put them on farmland.

MattW said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:

DavidL said:

rottenborough said:

Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
I see Rishi has joined Liz in highlighting the scourge of solar panels on our precious farmland. We have 23 million acres of farmland. Even if we quintuple solar output (the govt's target), it would take up roughly 1/200th of it. Also you can usually still farm on the land!

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1560538139730509824

===

More evidence that ageing Tory membership don't want to deal with the future.

Well that's lucky. What will come first, the end of the world or the end of the England second innings? Could be tight.

I think this fails the Occam's Razor test - at least for a long time in the future.

Colvile is proposing 175 square miles of solar farms on farmland. It fails the "necessary" test.

We should not even be touching that - with the impact on food production, recreation etc - until we have used all suitable available large roofs, car parks etc - which are situated in conirbations where the electricity is actually needed.

Amazon have just installed 20,000 sqm of solar panels on top of their Tilbury warehouse. That alone is 2 Hectares, and they have 20 fulfilment centres, just for one example.

In the UK we have something like 16 sqm of space in warehouses over 100k sqft, which will be divided by perhaps 1.x to get the roof area. That's just in the logistics sector.

We may not need to use farmland at all.

That is very sensible. Although I would question how much of the pre existing roofing of warehousing is suitable for solar panels. They do weigh a fair bit and some of the warehousing I have seen put up over the last few decades looks decidedly flimsy.

Very fair comment.

From what I see, portal frame buildings are likely to be the least suitable, and perhaps old and small ones - our 7000 sqft gym, for example, is in a medium height former warehouse (ceiling 6-9m). But if a roof is carrying aircon, water, and heating, then it bears a look.

There is also surrounding land, and surrounding car parks.

I think there are various unaddressed opportunities - perhaps airfields is one of the most obvious. Heathrow is 2 square miles, for example.

ClippP said:

HYUFD said:

ClippP said:

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

LostPassword said:

Sandpit said:

wooliedyed said:

Morning all. Just in reports of explosions around Zaporizhzhia, no other details yet.
Ukraine's energy people sayuig Russia are planning to disconnect the NPP from the Ukraine grid today, some concern over the spent fuel rods.

The Russians are playing with fire here, both figuratively and literally.

There’s nothing more likely to result in a Western escalation, than a nuclear ‘accident’ at Zaporizhzhia.

If Putin wants to see NATO countries send their armies into Ukraine, he’s going the right way about it.

The theory on the Telegraph Ukraine podcast yesterday was that Putin likes to provoke these crises so that he can gain leverage/kudos for ending them. They drew a parallel with the grain blockade, where there is now a deal allowing a limited quantity of Ukrainian grain exports.

So the idea would be that Putin provokes a nuclear crisis, but then agrees to resolve it in return for something - perhaps a ceasefire on the current front lines, or some limit on Western arms supplies, or just so that he can look good on Russian State TV.

The danger is that there is a miscalculation, a mistake, and a disaster happens.

I tend to think that it's a rather charitable interpretation of Putin's motivation and decision-making, similar to the analysis before the February invasion that saw the military buildup as a means to extract diplomatic concessions. But, well, fingers crossed, eh?

A nuclear "accident" in Ukraine renders large chunks of Ukraine economically unusable for decades. Putin would love that.

Putin needs to be told that a Russian engineered/black flag release of radiation in Ukraine will be treated as a nuclear attack on NATO every bit as much as if ICBM's had been launched at Poland, Germany, Western Europe. The radiation would predictably be affecting those countries as much as Ukraine. Every sanction up to nuclear retaliation will be available in that situation.

In reality all Biden would do is tighten sanctions and at most do an air strike and even that unlikely.

Unless a NATO nation is involved whatever happens in Ukraine we just continue supplying weapons and imposing sanctions and not much more

Poland is a NATO nation. Chunks of it will get irradiated.

Poland says it has suffered the consequences of an armed attack. Who is going to argue?

The Western leaders who are not going to go to World War 3 with a nuclear missile armed Russia because a bit of radiation drifts into Eastern Poland. I am sorry, that is just realpolitik reality

Sorry, young HY, but I think you are one of those Conservative appeasers, followers of Chamberlain. I think a pseudo Churchill Conservative, like your hero Johnson, would disown you.

We didn't go to war with Germany when they took over Austria or Czechoslovakia did we, only when Hitler invaded Poland. Hitler also didn't have nuclear weapons unlike Putin

Just what I was saying, young HY. Our Conservative Government did not go to war at the right time, while Hitler was relatively weak..... They went in for appeasement, as you want to do now.

On the second point, Putin does not have a Luftwaffe..... This was for everyday use, as it were, and absolutely terrifying. You probably do not remember.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

Outside PB and Twitter no one cares about Brexit. It’s the major issue for about 5-10% of the population - and that is falling

It really is a harvest of misery to care passionately about something - Rejoin - that is vanishingly unlikely in the lifetime of anyone here

Don’t do it

On the contrary.

Polling for Rejoin is very strong. No major party in England will be proposing it in their manifesto for GE 2024, but it cannot be ignored forever.

Sooner or later the fly encrusted unflushable turd of Brexit will be dealt with.

It's funny though as didn't you and other Remoaners used to say that Brexit polled badly because only the unprompted polling mattered? And that forced choice polls weren't significant, the fact that people weren't listing Brexit as an unprompted issue showed it didn't matter?

How is Rejoin polling presently as an issue on unprompted polls?

Stuartinromford said:

Driver said:

Stuartinromford said:

northern_monkey said:

Video from 2018 of US Embassy staff discussing impact of Brexit and the government’s approach to it. Wish I could be arsed to transcribe the choice lines from it. Worth a watch anyway.


https://twitter.com/marieannuk/status/1560372452160593921?s=21&t=k0IIfVqlUQo74z5Swew2cw

I like these replies:


Brexit is never going away, because it will continue to be shit. And an ever increasing percentage of the population will know it’s shit. And there will be political consequences for that. Might take 5 years, might be 10. But they’re coming.

More significantly- look at the age profile of Leave/Remain in 2016 and Good Idea/Bad Idea, and Stay Out/Rejoin now.

Leaving was the idea, mainly, of the retired. Those who were born and grew up in the 1950's, for whom Europe was always a dangerous innovation and a diminution of Britain's proper place in the world. They weren't keen on the EEC in 1975 either, and any explanation of why the UK voted out in 2016 has to take account of that. It's not people become more Eurosceptical as they age, it's that one specific generation have frankly never been keen on the whole shebang.

Whilst wishing them all long and happy lives, that generation (who was it who recently suggested John Lydon as their mascot?) will not be with us forever, and are already beginning to go to that place where there are no Euroreferenda. And unless Brexit goes so brilliantly that minds are changed then the attitude of the UK towards integration with our near neighbours will look rather different in 2026 to 2016, end even more so in 2036. (Hint: so far, hardly anyone's mind is being changed, and what net drift there is is towards the UK having dropped a clanger.)

This isn't about whether continued Brexit, Brapprochment or Brejoin are objectively the right things for the country to do. It's just the numbers of people with different instincts. And that may change, though it's not obvious how, and saying "like what we voted for you, ungrateful children-of-unmarried-parents" won't help, I'm sure.

Though the way that some are triggered by the idea that maybe we're making a mistake that could be reversed in future... sometimes there's a bit of more generalised raging at the dying of the light going on. After all, who wants their entry in the history books to be a massive cockup?

The correlation between Good idea/bad idea and Stay Out/Rejoin is rather weaker than you seem to be assuming.

This looks like the most recent poll on Rejoin/Stay Out. Deltapoll, Mail on Sunday, end of last month;




https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/should-the-united-kingdom-join-the-european-union-or-stay-out-of-the-european-union/

There is a slice of "we're out, it's a mistake, but it's too late." But that slice is smaller than I thought. And I wouldn't want to do a Euroreferendum on those numbers.

But- to return to my main point- look at that age profile.

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:

DavidL said:

rottenborough said:

Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
I see Rishi has joined Liz in highlighting the scourge of solar panels on our precious farmland. We have 23 million acres of farmland. Even if we quintuple solar output (the govt's target), it would take up roughly 1/200th of it. Also you can usually still farm on the land!

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1560538139730509824

===

More evidence that ageing Tory membership don't want to deal with the future.

Well that's lucky. What will come first, the end of the world or the end of the England second innings? Could be tight.

I think this fails the Occam's Razor test - at least for a long time in the future.

Colvile is proposing 175 square miles of solar farms on farmland. It fails the "necessary" test.

We should not even be touching that - with the impact on food production, recreation etc - until we have used all suitable available large roofs, car parks etc - which are situated in conirbations where the electricity is actually needed.

Amazon have just installed 20,000 sqm of solar panels on top of their Tilbury warehouse. That alone is 2 Hectares, and they have 20 fulfilment centres, just for one example.

In the UK we have something like 16 sqm of space in warehouses over 100k sqft, which will be divided by perhaps 1.x to get the roof area. That's just in the logistics sector.

We may not need to use farmland at all.

That is very sensible. Although I would question how much of the pre existing roofing of warehousing is suitable for solar panels. They do weigh a fair bit and some of the warehousing I have seen put up over the last few decades looks decidedly flimsy.

Very fair comment.

From what I see, portal frame buildings are likely to be the least suitable, and perhaps old and small ones - our 7000 sqft gym, for example, is in a medium height former warehouse (ceiling 6-9m). But if a roof is carrying aircon, water, and heating, then it bears a look.

There is also surrounding land, and surrounding car parks.

I think there are various unaddressed opportunities - perhaps airfields is one of the most obvious. Heathrow is 2 square miles, for example.

I agree. I think there is huge scope here.

I also come back to my long term gripe. Why do we not insist that every new house built in the UK has solar panels fitted as standard at the time of building. Economies of scale would make it much cheaper, there would also not be the hassle of retrofitting and if you are paying £200K for a new house then to be honest the difference between £199K and £202K is bugger all when you are going for a mortgage.

I do understand that certain properties might not be suitable and also that there is a debate about what sort of solar panelling is used but all of that applies to retrofitting as well.

So my first environmental action when I become dictator for life: All suitable new build developments must include solar panels.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Andy_JS said:

The other day I said you could put solar panels on warehouses, factories, industrial estates, etc. You don't need to put them on farmland.

You don't "need" to put anything, anywhere.

If farmers want to put solar panels on their land, they should have that prerogative.

If warehouses which are glorified tin cans can't support the weight of a solar panel and their owners don't want to install them, that should be their prerogative.

Why should a farmer be denied the right to choose to install solar panels, if they want to do so? And if the answer is food security, should we be banning bio fuels too?

Driver said:

Stuartinromford said:

Driver said:

Stuartinromford said:

northern_monkey said:

Video from 2018 of US Embassy staff discussing impact of Brexit and the government’s approach to it. Wish I could be arsed to transcribe the choice lines from it. Worth a watch anyway.


https://twitter.com/marieannuk/status/1560372452160593921?s=21&t=k0IIfVqlUQo74z5Swew2cw

I like these replies:


Brexit is never going away, because it will continue to be shit. And an ever increasing percentage of the population will know it’s shit. And there will be political consequences for that. Might take 5 years, might be 10. But they’re coming.

More significantly- look at the age profile of Leave/Remain in 2016 and Good Idea/Bad Idea, and Stay Out/Rejoin now.

Leaving was the idea, mainly, of the retired. Those who were born and grew up in the 1950's, for whom Europe was always a dangerous innovation and a diminution of Britain's proper place in the world. They weren't keen on the EEC in 1975 either, and any explanation of why the UK voted out in 2016 has to take account of that. It's not people become more Eurosceptical as they age, it's that one specific generation have frankly never been keen on the whole shebang.

Whilst wishing them all long and happy lives, that generation (who was it who recently suggested John Lydon as their mascot?) will not be with us forever, and are already beginning to go to that place where there are no Euroreferenda. And unless Brexit goes so brilliantly that minds are changed then the attitude of the UK towards integration with our near neighbours will look rather different in 2026 to 2016, end even more so in 2036. (Hint: so far, hardly anyone's mind is being changed, and what net drift there is is towards the UK having dropped a clanger.)

This isn't about whether continued Brexit, Brapprochment or Brejoin are objectively the right things for the country to do. It's just the numbers of people with different instincts. And that may change, though it's not obvious how, and saying "like what we voted for you, ungrateful children-of-unmarried-parents" won't help, I'm sure.

Though the way that some are triggered by the idea that maybe we're making a mistake that could be reversed in future... sometimes there's a bit of more generalised raging at the dying of the light going on. After all, who wants their entry in the history books to be a massive cockup?

The correlation between Good idea/bad idea and Stay Out/Rejoin is rather weaker than you seem to be assuming.

This looks like the most recent poll on Rejoin/Stay Out. Deltapoll, Mail on Sunday, end of last month;




https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/should-the-united-kingdom-join-the-european-union-or-stay-out-of-the-european-union/

There is a slice of "we're out, it's a mistake, but it's too late." But that slice is smaller than I thought. And I wouldn't want to do a Euroreferendum on those numbers.

But- to return to my main point- look at that age profile.

They will grow up. And in 20 years time they will have forgotten the before time - and the next cohort will never have known it.

It's easy to say in an opinion poll now "rejoin" - is the question doesn't specify that the rejoin terms of membership would be very different to the previous terms of membership, the question is worthless.

Leon said:

Scott_xP said:

Leon said:

Outside PB and Twitter no one cares about Brexit.

I posted a comment about an article in the Telegraph

And you collectively shit yourself, for 2 entire threads

Of course I did. In other news you are a tragic fuck and I am having a large glass of Picpoul at City airport

Foxy said:

Leon said:

Outside PB and Twitter no one cares about Brexit. It’s the major issue for about 5-10% of the population - and that is falling

It really is a harvest of misery to care passionately about something - Rejoin - that is vanishingly unlikely in the lifetime of anyone here

Don’t do it

On the contrary.

Polling for Rejoin is very strong. No major party in England will be proposing it in their manifesto for GE 2024, but it cannot be ignored forever.

Sooner or later the fly encrusted unflushable turd of Brexit will be dealt with.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

Outside PB and Twitter no one cares about Brexit. It’s the major issue for about 5-10% of the population - and that is falling

It really is a harvest of misery to care passionately about something - Rejoin - that is vanishingly unlikely in the lifetime of anyone here

Don’t do it

On the contrary.

Polling for Rejoin is very strong. No major party in England will be proposing it in their manifesto for GE 2024, but it cannot be ignored forever.

Sooner or later the fly encrusted unflushable turd of Brexit will be dealt with.

It's funny though as didn't you and other Remoaners used to say that Brexit polled badly because only the unprompted polling mattered? And that forced choice polls weren't significant, the fact that people weren't listing Brexit as an unprompted issue showed it didn't matter?

How is Rejoin polling presently as an issue on unprompted polls?

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:

DavidL said:

rottenborough said:

Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
I see Rishi has joined Liz in highlighting the scourge of solar panels on our precious farmland. We have 23 million acres of farmland. Even if we quintuple solar output (the govt's target), it would take up roughly 1/200th of it. Also you can usually still farm on the land!

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1560538139730509824

===

More evidence that ageing Tory membership don't want to deal with the future.

Well that's lucky. What will come first, the end of the world or the end of the England second innings? Could be tight.

I think this fails the Occam's Razor test - at least for a long time in the future.

Colvile is proposing 175 square miles of solar farms on farmland. It fails the "necessary" test.

We should not even be touching that - with the impact on food production, recreation etc - until we have used all suitable available large roofs, car parks etc - which are situated in conirbations where the electricity is actually needed.

Amazon have just installed 20,000 sqm of solar panels on top of their Tilbury warehouse. That alone is 2 Hectares, and they have 20 fulfilment centres, just for one example.

In the UK we have something like 16 sqm of space in warehouses over 100k sqft, which will be divided by perhaps 1.x to get the roof area. That's just in the logistics sector.

We may not need to use farmland at all.

That is very sensible. Although I would question how much of the pre existing roofing of warehousing is suitable for solar panels. They do weigh a fair bit and some of the warehousing I have seen put up over the last few decades looks decidedly flimsy.

Very fair comment.

From what I see, portal frame buildings are likely to be the least suitable, and perhaps old and small ones - our 7000 sqft gym, for example, is in a medium height former warehouse (ceiling 6-9m). But if a roof is carrying aircon, water, and heating, then it bears a look.

There is also surrounding land, and surrounding car parks.

I think there are various unaddressed opportunities - perhaps airfields is one of the most obvious. Heathrow is 2 square miles, for example.

I agree. I think there is huge scope here.

I also come back to my long term gripe. Why do we not insist that every new house built in the UK has solar panels fitted as standard at the time of building. Economies of scale would make it much cheaper, there would also not be the hassle of retrofitting and if you are paying £200K for a new house then to be honest the difference between £199K and £202K is bugger all when you are going for a mortgage.

I do understand that certain properties might not be suitable and also that there is a debate about what sort of solar panelling is used but all of that applies to retrofitting as well.

So my first environmental action when I become dictator for life: All suitable new build developments must include solar panels.

Eabhal said:

Council workers been on strike for one day in Edinburgh and the bins are already a disaster.

Another 12 days like this and it'll end up looking like Glasgow.

MattW said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:

DavidL said:

rottenborough said:

Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
I see Rishi has joined Liz in highlighting the scourge of solar panels on our precious farmland. We have 23 million acres of farmland. Even if we quintuple solar output (the govt's target), it would take up roughly 1/200th of it. Also you can usually still farm on the land!

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1560538139730509824

===

More evidence that ageing Tory membership don't want to deal with the future.

Well that's lucky. What will come first, the end of the world or the end of the England second innings? Could be tight.

I think this fails the Occam's Razor test - at least for a long time in the future.

Colvile is proposing 175 square miles of solar farms on farmland. It fails the "necessary" test.

We should not even be touching that - with the impact on food production, recreation etc - until we have used all suitable available large roofs, car parks etc - which are situated in conirbations where the electricity is actually needed.

Amazon have just installed 20,000 sqm of solar panels on top of their Tilbury warehouse. That alone is 2 Hectares, and they have 20 fulfilment centres, just for one example.

In the UK we have something like 16 sqm of space in warehouses over 100k sqft, which will be divided by perhaps 1.x to get the roof area. That's just in the logistics sector.

We may not need to use farmland at all.

That is very sensible. Although I would question how much of the pre existing roofing of warehousing is suitable for solar panels. They do weigh a fair bit and some of the warehousing I have seen put up over the last few decades looks decidedly flimsy.

Very fair comment.

From what I see, portal frame buildings are likely to be the least suitable, and perhaps old and small ones - our 7000 sqft gym, for example, is in a medium height former warehouse (ceiling 6-9m). But if a roof is carrying aircon, water, and heating, then it bears a look.

There is also surrounding land, and surrounding car parks.

I think there are various unaddressed opportunities - perhaps airfields is one of the most obvious. Heathrow is 2 square miles, for example.

I agree. I think there is huge scope here.

I also come back to my long term gripe. Why do we not insist that every new house built in the UK has solar panels fitted as standard at the time of building. Economies of scale would make it much cheaper, there would also not be the hassle of retrofitting and if you are paying £200K for a new house then to be honest the difference between £199K and £202K is bugger all when you are going for a mortgage.

I do understand that certain properties might not be suitable and also that there is a debate about what sort of solar panelling is used but all of that applies to retrofitting as well.

So my first environmental action when I become dictator for life: All suitable new build developments must include solar panels.

I've never explored the reasons why that was not done.

Suspect it is because in the UK we prefer to set a hands-off goal, and leave the regulated to find the most effective route to meet it in all the circumstances.

Here, for example, the Energy Performance is regulated via Building Regs and the as-designed SAP modelling, and extra solar for a whole estate could pick up a cost to be met by the developer for upgrading the local Electricity Grid (which happens even to individual householders who only have a right to install 3.68 kWp of solar if, eg, they want to install 10 kWp) which would make super-insulating a more cost effective option for that development.

Such costs can be *very* substantial, of the order of 6 or 7 figures (ie 000s or 0000s per house) for a moderately sized estate.

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Pope gone.

I had a panic there and thought that was Pope Francis, then realised it was only the cricket

Can he bat five?

LostPassword said:

Eabhal said:

Council workers been on strike for one day in Edinburgh and the bins are already a disaster.

Another 12 days like this and it'll end up looking like Glasgow.

Huh. News to me. Why is this then?

MattW said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:

DavidL said:

rottenborough said:

Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
I see Rishi has joined Liz in highlighting the scourge of solar panels on our precious farmland. We have 23 million acres of farmland. Even if we quintuple solar output (the govt's target), it would take up roughly 1/200th of it. Also you can usually still farm on the land!

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1560538139730509824

===

More evidence that ageing Tory membership don't want to deal with the future.

Well that's lucky. What will come first, the end of the world or the end of the England second innings? Could be tight.

I think this fails the Occam's Razor test - at least for a long time in the future.

Colvile is proposing 175 square miles of solar farms on farmland. It fails the "necessary" test.

We should not even be touching that - with the impact on food production, recreation etc - until we have used all suitable available large roofs, car parks etc - which are situated in conirbations where the electricity is actually needed.

Amazon have just installed 20,000 sqm of solar panels on top of their Tilbury warehouse. That alone is 2 Hectares, and they have 20 fulfilment centres, just for one example.

In the UK we have something like 16 sqm of space in warehouses over 100k sqft, which will be divided by perhaps 1.x to get the roof area. That's just in the logistics sector.

We may not need to use farmland at all.

That is very sensible. Although I would question how much of the pre existing roofing of warehousing is suitable for solar panels. They do weigh a fair bit and some of the warehousing I have seen put up over the last few decades looks decidedly flimsy.

Very fair comment.

From what I see, portal frame buildings are likely to be the least suitable, and perhaps old and small ones - our 7000 sqft gym, for example, is in a medium height former warehouse (ceiling 6-9m). But if a roof is carrying aircon, water, and heating, then it bears a look.

There is also surrounding land, and surrounding car parks.

I think there are various unaddressed opportunities - perhaps airfields is one of the most obvious. Heathrow is 2 square miles, for example.

I agree. I think there is huge scope here.

I also come back to my long term gripe. Why do we not insist that every new house built in the UK has solar panels fitted as standard at the time of building. Economies of scale would make it much cheaper, there would also not be the hassle of retrofitting and if you are paying £200K for a new house then to be honest the difference between £199K and £202K is bugger all when you are going for a mortgage.

I do understand that certain properties might not be suitable and also that there is a debate about what sort of solar panelling is used but all of that applies to retrofitting as well.

So my first environmental action when I become dictator for life: All suitable new build developments must include solar panels.

I've never explored the reasons why that was not done.

Suspect it is because in the UK we prefer to set a hands-off goal, and leave the regulated to find the most effective route to meet it in all the circumstances.

Here, for example, the Energy Performance is regulated via Building Regs and the as-designed SAP modelling, and extra solar for a whole estate could pick up a cost to be met by the developer for upgrading the local Electricity Grid (which
happens even to individual householders who only have a right to install 3.68 kWp of solar if, eg, they want to install 10 kWp) which would make super-insulating a more cost effective option for that development.

Such costs can be *very* substantial, of the order of 6 or 7 figures (ie 000s or 0000s per house) for a moderately sized estate.

IshmaelZ said:

Pulpstar said:

MattW said:

rottenborough said:

Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
I see Rishi has joined Liz in highlighting the scourge of solar panels on our precious farmland. We have 23 million acres of farmland. Even if we quintuple solar output (the govt's target), it would take up roughly 1/200th of it. Also you can usually still farm on the land!

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1560538139730509824

===

More evidence that ageing Tory membership don't want to deal with the future.

I think this fails the Occam's Razor test - at least for a long time.

Colvile is proposing 175 square miles of solar farms on farmland. It fails the "necessary" test.

We should not even be touching that - with the impact on food production, recreation etc - until we have used all suitable available large roofs, car parks etc - which are situated in conirbations where the electricity is actually needed.

Amazon have just installed 20,000 sqm of solar panels on top of their Tilbury warehouse. That alone is 2 Hectares, and they have 20 fulfilment centres, just for one example.

In the UK we have something like 16 sqm of space in warehouses over 100k sqft, which will be divided by perhaps 1.x to get the roof area. That's just in the warehousing sector.

We may not need to use farmland at all.


https://www.cambridgeshirechamber.co.uk/downloadlibrary/UKWA Savills.pdf

Sheep are quite happy to wonder in and around solar panels.

They can philosophise pretty much anywhere. In practice they are rigorously excluded to stop them banging in to and damaging things, and anyway you can't have your insolation and eat it. You get grass or electric, not both.

Scott_xP said:

williamglenn said:

Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist

Brexiteers are the ones shitting themselves that Brexit dies with [Boris]

HYUFD said:

ClippP said:

HYUFD said:

ClippP said:

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

LostPassword said:

Sandpit said:

wooliedyed said:

Morning all. Just in reports of explosions around Zaporizhzhia, no other details yet.
Ukraine's energy people sayuig Russia are planning to disconnect the NPP from the Ukraine grid today, some concern over the spent fuel rods.

The Russians are playing with fire here, both figuratively and literally.

There’s nothing more likely to result in a Western escalation, than a nuclear ‘accident’ at Zaporizhzhia.

If Putin wants to see NATO countries send their armies into Ukraine, he’s going the right way about it.

The theory on the Telegraph Ukraine podcast yesterday was that Putin likes to provoke these crises so that he can gain leverage/kudos for ending them. They drew a parallel with the grain blockade, where there is now a deal allowing a limited quantity of Ukrainian grain exports.

So the idea would be that Putin provokes a nuclear crisis, but then agrees to resolve it in return for something - perhaps a ceasefire on the current front lines, or some limit on Western arms supplies, or just so that he can look good on Russian State TV.

The danger is that there is a miscalculation, a mistake, and a disaster happens.

I tend to think that it's a rather charitable interpretation of Putin's motivation and decision-making, similar to the analysis before the February invasion that saw the military buildup as a means to extract diplomatic concessions. But, well, fingers crossed, eh?

A nuclear "accident" in Ukraine renders large chunks of Ukraine economically unusable for decades. Putin would love that.

Putin needs to be told that a Russian engineered/black flag release of radiation in Ukraine will be treated as a nuclear attack on NATO every bit as much as if ICBM's had been launched at Poland, Germany, Western Europe. The radiation would predictably be affecting those countries as much as Ukraine. Every sanction up to nuclear retaliation will be available in that situation.

In reality all Biden would do is tighten sanctions and at most do an air strike and even that unlikely.

Unless a NATO nation is involved whatever happens in Ukraine we just continue supplying weapons and imposing sanctions and not much more

Poland is a NATO nation. Chunks of it will get irradiated.

Poland says it has suffered the consequences of an armed attack. Who is going to argue?

The Western leaders who are not going to go to World War 3 with a nuclear missile armed Russia because a bit of radiation drifts into Eastern Poland. I am sorry, that is just realpolitik reality

Sorry, young HY, but I think you are one of those Conservative appeasers, followers of Chamberlain. I think a pseudo Churchill Conservative, like your hero Johnson, would disown you.

We didn't go to war with Germany when they took over Austria or Czechoslovakia did we, only when Hitler invaded Poland. Hitler also didn't have nuclear weapons unlike Putin

Just what I was saying, young HY. Our Conservative Government did not go to war at the right time, while Hitler was relatively weak..... They went in for appeasement, as you want to do now.

On the second point, Putin does not have a Luftwaffe..... This was for everyday use, as it were, and absolutely terrifying. You probably do not remember.

They had red lines as we do now, Hitler went too far and tried to conquer and occupy all of Europe rather than staying in the German sphere. Putin has not started marching across Europe yet beyond Ukraine.

The Luftwaffe could not destroy millions with 1 bomb as Putin could with a nuclear missile

Pulpstar said:

MattW said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:

DavidL said:

rottenborough said:

Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
I see Rishi has joined Liz in highlighting the scourge of solar panels on our precious farmland. We have 23 million acres of farmland. Even if we quintuple solar output (the govt's target), it would take up roughly 1/200th of it. Also you can usually still farm on the land!

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1560538139730509824

===

More evidence that ageing Tory membership don't want to deal with the future.

Well that's lucky. What will come first, the end of the world or the end of the England second innings? Could be tight.

I think this fails the Occam's Razor test - at least for a long time in the future.

Colvile is proposing 175 square miles of solar farms on farmland. It fails the "necessary" test.

We should not even be touching that - with the impact on food production, recreation etc - until we have used all suitable available large roofs, car parks etc - which are situated in conirbations where the electricity is actually needed.

Amazon have just installed 20,000 sqm of solar panels on top of their Tilbury warehouse. That alone is 2 Hectares, and they have 20 fulfilment centres, just for one example.

In the UK we have something like 16 sqm of space in warehouses over 100k sqft, which will be divided by perhaps 1.x to get the roof area. That's just in the logistics sector.

We may not need to use farmland at all.

That is very sensible. Although I would question how much of the pre existing roofing of warehousing is suitable for solar panels. They do weigh a fair bit and some of the warehousing I have seen put up over the last few decades looks decidedly flimsy.

Very fair comment.

From what I see, portal frame buildings are likely to be the least suitable, and perhaps old and small ones - our 7000 sqft gym, for example, is in a medium height former warehouse (ceiling 6-9m). But if a roof is carrying aircon, water, and heating, then it bears a look.

There is also surrounding land, and surrounding car parks.

I think there are various unaddressed opportunities - perhaps airfields is one of the most obvious. Heathrow is 2 square miles, for example.

I agree. I think there is huge scope here.

I also come back to my long term gripe. Why do we not insist that every new house built in the UK has solar panels fitted as standard at the time of building. Economies of scale would make it much cheaper, there would also not be the hassle of retrofitting and if you are paying £200K for a new house then to be honest the difference between £199K and £202K is bugger all when you are going for a mortgage.

I do understand that certain properties might not be suitable and also that there is a debate about what sort of solar panelling is used but all of that applies to retrofitting as well.

So my first environmental action when I become dictator for life: All suitable new build developments must include solar panels.

I've never explored the reasons why that was not done.

Suspect it is because in the UK we prefer to set a hands-off goal, and leave the regulated to find the most effective route to meet it in all the circumstances.

Here, for example, the Energy Performance is regulated via Building Regs and the as-designed SAP modelling, and extra solar for a whole estate could pick up a cost to be met by the developer for upgrading the local Electricity Grid (which happens even to individual householders who only have a right to install 3.68 kWp of solar if, eg, they want to install 10 kWp) which would make super-insulating a more cost effective option for that development.

Such costs can be *very* substantial, of the order of 6 or 7 figures (ie 000s or 0000s per house) for a moderately sized estate.

I asked my surveyor for my current house what the value would have been without panels. Absolubtely no difference he amazingly came back with.

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

BTW:

Is he plural of 'roof' roofs or rooves?

I was taught 'rooves', but it always looks wrong to me when written, but better when spoken.

'Roofs' is American, 'rooves' is proper English.

Therefore, almost everyone including autocorrect uses 'roofs.'

Foxy said:

Driver said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

Outside PB and Twitter no one cares about Brexit. It’s the major issue for about 5-10% of the population - and that is falling

It really is a harvest of misery to care passionately about something - Rejoin - that is vanishingly unlikely in the lifetime of anyone here

Don’t do it

On the contrary.

Polling for Rejoin is very strong. No major party in England will be proposing it in their manifesto for GE 2024, but it cannot be ignored forever.

Sooner or later the fly encrusted unflushable turd of Brexit will be dealt with.

Only because the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Until we restart accession negotiations we won't know the terms.

But I agree with you, we had an excellent deal tailored to our politics that would be hard to match.

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Foxy said:

Driver said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

Outside PB and Twitter no one cares about Brexit. It’s the major issue for about 5-10% of the population - and that is falling

It really is a harvest of misery to care passionately about something - Rejoin - that is vanishingly unlikely in the lifetime of anyone here

Don’t do it

On the contrary.

Polling for Rejoin is very strong. No major party in England will be proposing it in their manifesto for GE 2024, but it cannot be ignored forever.

Sooner or later the fly encrusted unflushable turd of Brexit will be dealt with.

Only because the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Until we restart accession negotiations we won't know the terms.

But I agree with you, we had an excellent deal tailored to our politics that would be hard to match.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Driver, to be fair, Remain could have done a much, much better job. Whether you're on one side or the other, the failure of the pro-EU campaign is and was pretty obvious. It was astonishingly bad, and they really should've won.

A little more time on economic benefits and a little less back of the queue/Little England tittering would've done it.

Carnyx said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

Stuartinromford said:

MarqueeMark said:

Pulpstar said:

MattW said:

rottenborough said:

Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
I see Rishi has joined Liz in highlighting the scourge of solar panels on our precious farmland. We have 23 million acres of farmland. Even if we quintuple solar output (the govt's target), it would take up roughly 1/200th of it. Also you can usually still farm on the land!

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1560538139730509824

===

More evidence that ageing Tory membership don't want to deal with the future.

I think this fails the Occam's Razor test - at least for a long time.

Colvile is proposing 175 square miles of solar farms on farmland. It fails the "necessary" test.

We should not even be touching that - with the impact on food production, recreation etc - until we have used all suitable available large roofs, car parks etc - which are situated in conirbations where the electricity is actually needed.

Amazon have just installed 20,000 sqm of solar panels on top of their Tilbury warehouse. That alone is 2 Hectares, and they have 20 fulfilment centres, just for one example.

In the UK we have something like 16 sqm of space in warehouses over 100k sqft, which will be divided by perhaps 1.x to get the roof area. That's just in the warehousing sector.

We may not need to use farmland at all.


https://www.cambridgeshirechamber.co.uk/downloadlibrary/UKWA Savills.pdf

Sheep are quite happy to wonder in and around solar panels.

Wondering "WTF? Give me some proper pasture, not a place that has been engineered by computers to absorb as much of the grass-growing sunlight as it possible...."

The sheep are probably glad of the shade on hot days.

As is the grass- it grows best around 20 degrees, and exposure to full summer sun takes it way beyond that.

Light is far from the only limiting factor for photosynthesis- otherwise houseplants wouldn't be happy.

The people who don't like solar farms are those who either
a) want to discredit solar power full stop, or
b) think it spoils the view from the kitchen of Ye Olde Farmhouse or on their country walks.

And whilst I'm not full-on Libertarian "do what you like with your land", you need better arguments than that.

Again: I look at a fairfew of these things. What you claim may happen in foreign parts, not here. They are all at ground level and fenced like Colditz.

You mean, they're meant to be fenced but in reality the sheep get through them all the time?

Yes, but only in the TV series.

Must be difficult getting the sheep to line up in neat rows for Appel every morning and evening.

Scott_xP said:

Morris_Dancer said:

A little more time on economic benefits and a little less back of the queue/Little England tittering would've done it.

No, it wouldn't.

The millions of people who voted for Nigel Fucking Farage and his racist posters didn't care about that

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.