If the polls continue like this can Sunak survive? – politicalbetting.com

Joe Biden exit date from the US presidency: Smarkets: 2023, 8.6; 2024, also 8.6. Tempting but not enough for a nibble unless the prices go out which they probably won't. The prospect of a Harris vs Trump contest is chilling, whether she'll already be in office or not.

Tory MPs seem to have lost their reputation for cool rational decision making about their leaders, so depending on how the May locals go this Summer /early Autumn could be a very difficult time for Mr Sunak, who I dont feel has a hard core faction willing to fight for him personally.. however the Tories have an outstanding capacity to fight elections, I must admit I'd welcome a '97 style wipeout but I dont see it happening (quite yet).

Boris Johnson could agree not to challenge Rishi Sunak in exchange for the promise of a safe seat at the next election, friends of the former prime minister have said.

Johnson would “leverage” his position over Sunak if the Conservatives did badly in the local elections in May under plans being discussed by his allies.

Four months after he left Downing Street, a determined group of Johnson’s supporters still hope he will return as prime minister before the next general election.

One close ally of the prime minister said that the number of Conservative MPs who wanted Johnson to oust Sunak amounted to “only two dozen, maybe three dozen at most” and warned: “We would just look ridiculous if we changed PM again. Most people get that.”

Yet the former prime minister is unlikely to quit politics. “He would find it very hard to give up,” the ally conceded.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-wont-oust-rishi-sunak-prime-minister-txhbtcswl

The Plymouth by elections both bad for the Tories. Green hold in one they won last year, Lab taking one that went UKIP in the past, then Tory.

Ugh more evidence, if more proof were needed, that the University of Oxford needs to be razed. Also what is it about Swedes and their xenophobia and racism?

An Oxford academic has apologised for a 1996 email in which he wrote: “Blacks are more stupid than whites.”

In the message, Professor Nick Bostrom added: “I won’t have much success with most people if I speak like that . . . [it] seems to be synonymous with: I hate those bloody n*****s!!!!”

The University of Oxford said it had launched an investigation and condemned “in the strongest terms possible the views this particular academic expressed in his communications”.

Bostrom, a Swedish-born philosopher, is director of Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute. He made the comments as part of a mailing list for an internet forum, The Extropians. In a statement published on his website, Bostrom said he chose to apologise — and re-publish the message — after hearing rumours that past comments would be “maliciously framed” and used in “smear campaigns”.

Bostrom said that the Extropians forum had been a place for conversations about “science fiction, future technologies, society and all sorts of random things” but that there was also a lot of “silly, mistaken, or outright offensive stuff”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blacks-more-stupid-than-whites-wrote-oxford-don-8gsj8l0wf

Foxy said:

Big pro-EU swings across the bloc:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/12/support-for-leaving-eu-has-fallen-significantly-across-bloc-since-brexit

Similar swing to Pro EU here...

It is effectively impossible to leave the EU if you are a member of the Euro. Or to put it another way, it would cause major disruption that would be highly damaging to the country concerned and certainly wouldn’t lead to ‘sunlit uplands.’ It was hard and disruptive enough leaving when we weren’t.

I imagine most Europeans have looked at the cost/benefit analysis in light of our experience and concluded it isn’t worth the hassle.

Of course, that may change back if political integration continues in its current rather incoherent form.

UK economy grows by 0.1% against a forecast of a fall of 0.3%.

Good news

Taz said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh more evidence, if more proof were needed, that the University of Oxford needs to be razed. Also what is it about Swedes and their xenophobia and racism?

An Oxford academic has apologised for a 1996 email in which he wrote: “Blacks are more stupid than whites.”

In the message, Professor Nick Bostrom added: “I won’t have much success with most people if I speak like that . . . [it] seems to be synonymous with: I hate those bloody n*****s!!!!”

The University of Oxford said it had launched an investigation and condemned “in the strongest terms possible the views this particular academic expressed in his communications”.

Bostrom, a Swedish-born philosopher, is director of Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute. He made the comments as part of a mailing list for an internet forum, The Extropians. In a statement published on his website, Bostrom said he chose to apologise — and re-publish the message — after hearing rumours that past comments would be “maliciously framed” and used in “smear campaigns”.

Bostrom said that the Extropians forum had been a place for conversations about “science fiction, future technologies, society and all sorts of random things” but that there was also a lot of “silly, mistaken, or outright offensive stuff”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blacks-more-stupid-than-whites-wrote-oxford-don-8gsj8l0wf

I’m surprised his comments were even acceptable back then. I doubt holding him to account for those words would be a smear campaign. But he is the victim here.

Mind you in other race/Uni/woke News, and I am sure @Leon has seen it, fields are racist.

https://news.sky.com/story/university-department-removes-the-word-field-over-racist-connotations-12784945

They weren't. Though rather more common to hear back then.

The Tories, cant get rid of Sunak, they would be more of a laughing stock than they already are, if that is indeed possible. As for the nonsense that gets trotted out about them having 3 female PMs and the first PM of Asian descent, whilst it is true, if Sunak goes they would have had 5 PMs in 5 years, Labour have only had 4 PMs since the 1950s

TheScreamingEagles said:

Boris Johnson could agree not to challenge Rishi Sunak in exchange for the promise of a safe seat at the next election, friends of the former prime minister have said.

Johnson would “leverage” his position over Sunak if the Conservatives did badly in the local elections in May under plans being discussed by his allies.

Four months after he left Downing Street, a determined group of Johnson’s supporters still hope he will return as prime minister before the next general election.

One close ally of the prime minister said that the number of Conservative MPs who wanted Johnson to oust Sunak amounted to “only two dozen, maybe three dozen at most” and warned: “We would just look ridiculous if we changed PM again. Most people get that.”

Yet the former prime minister is unlikely to quit politics. “He would find it very hard to give up,” the ally conceded.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-wont-oust-rishi-sunak-prime-minister-txhbtcswl

Yes, I think it's very unlikely.

Nevertheless I'm on that happening at 10/1 because we know Johnson is an opportunist and there may arise an opportunity.

Still strictly speaking 2 years to go.

Taz said:

UK economy grows by 0.1% against a forecast of a fall of 0.3%.

Good news

I have a feeling this year is going to be much better than expected.

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh more evidence, if more proof were needed, that the University of Oxford needs to be razed. Also what is it about Swedes and their xenophobia and racism?

An Oxford academic has apologised for a 1996 email in which he wrote: “Blacks are more stupid than whites.”

In the message, Professor Nick Bostrom added: “I won’t have much success with most people if I speak like that . . . [it] seems to be synonymous with: I hate those bloody n*****s!!!!”

The University of Oxford said it had launched an investigation and condemned “in the strongest terms possible the views this particular academic expressed in his communications”.

Bostrom, a Swedish-born philosopher, is director of Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute. He made the comments as part of a mailing list for an internet forum, The Extropians. In a statement published on his website, Bostrom said he chose to apologise — and re-publish the message — after hearing rumours that past comments would be “maliciously framed” and used in “smear campaigns”.

Bostrom said that the Extropians forum had been a place for conversations about “science fiction, future technologies, society and all sorts of random things” but that there was also a lot of “silly, mistaken, or outright offensive stuff”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blacks-more-stupid-than-whites-wrote-oxford-don-8gsj8l0wf

I’m surprised his comments were even acceptable back then. I doubt holding him to account for those words would be a smear campaign. But he is the victim here.

Mind you in other race/Uni/woke News, and I am sure @Leon has seen it, fields are racist.

https://news.sky.com/story/university-department-removes-the-word-field-over-racist-connotations-12784945

They weren't. Though rather more common to hear back then.

Oi! Less of this "back then" crap. It was 1996 not 1956!

Making me feel ancient.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

DJ41 said:

Joe Biden exit date from the US presidency: Smarkets: 2023, 8.6; 2024, also 8.6. Tempting but not enough for a nibble unless the prices go out which they probably won't. The prospect of a Harris vs Trump contest is chilling, whether she'll already be in office or not.

That is, essentially, a death bet.

If you think the classified document issue will remove him, think again. There just isn't an even vaguely credible route to impeachment, even if the story gets substantially worse for him.

There might come a time when I buy some insurance on a Biden exit in 2024 or 25 (conscious the new president isn't sworn in until then, and he will definitely survive 2023 barring a calamity) but not at these odds.

Casino_Royale said:

Taz said:

UK economy grows by 0.1% against a forecast of a fall of 0.3%.

Good news

I have a feeling this year is going to be much better than expected.

Let’s hope so. Doubt it will do the Tories much good though. You dig a hole and put the country in it, you’re not going to get much credit if the country starts to climb out.

Casino_Royale said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

DJ41 said:

Joe Biden exit date from the US presidency: Smarkets: 2023, 8.6; 2024, also 8.6. Tempting but not enough for a nibble unless the prices go out which they probably won't. The prospect of a Harris vs Trump contest is chilling, whether she'll already be in office or not.

That is, essentially, a death bet.

If you think the classified document issue will remove him, think again. There just isn't an even vaguely credible route to impeachment, even if the story gets substantially worse for him.

There might come a time when I buy some insurance on a Biden exit in 2024 or 25 (conscious the new president isn't sworn in until then, and he will definitely survive 2023 barring a calamity) but not at these odds.

Yes, I laid a bit of my position on him yesterday.
I still think he's quite likely to run, but the odds ought to lengthen.

Casino_Royale said:

Taz said:

UK economy grows by 0.1% against a forecast of a fall of 0.3%.

Good news

I have a feeling this year is going to be much better than expected.

Yes, in my New Year predictions I went for fairly flat over the year, with figures hovering around the zero mark on either side rather than recession.

I note that the World Bank downgraded the worldwide forecast from 3% to 1.7% recently.

https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/news/4062500/world-bank-cuts-2023-global-growth-projection#:~:text=The World Bank has cut,January and June last year.

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

The U.K. is not doing enough to get to net zero, in a report from a Tory MP who is standing down at the next election.

He is standing down to focus his future career, coincidentally, on Britain’s net zero transformation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64257057

Of course.
Only reasonable for a Tory to go where the money is. That hardly detracts from the conclusions of the report.

Given the author has a vested interest the conclusions should not be taken at face value.

Britain has made major strides and continues to do so on climate change and net zero. I just would question how independent a report can be when written by a vested interest.

Taz said:

We are further away from 1996 today, than 1996 was to 1956. It is 27 years ago.

I don’t think that’s correct. 1956 to 1996 looks like 40 years to me.

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

The U.K. is not doing enough to get to net zero, in a report from a Tory MP who is standing down at the next election.

He is standing down to focus his future career, coincidentally, on Britain’s net zero transformation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64257057

Of course.
Only reasonable for a Tory to go where the money is. That hardly detracts from the conclusions of the report.

Of all of those it's the phasing out of gas boilers that is the most unrealistic.

Why ?
The suggestion is for phasing out new gas boilers in a decade's time - not all gas boilers.
Seems achievable to me.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Gary Lineker: Pay MPs more to attract greatest minds
Britain would be better governed if politicians were paid more to entice the country’s “brilliant minds” to run for office, ...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gary-lineker-pay-mps-more-to-attract-greatest-minds-q9r539cqs (£££)

How does Gary know it wouldn’t simply attract more crooks?

tlg86 said:

Taz said:

UK economy grows by 0.1% against a forecast of a fall of 0.3%.

Good news

Is it? To what extent are the forecasts based on how people ought to behave given the economic conditions? Are some people living beyond their means (to an even greater extent than normal) to sustain their standard of living?

It is compared to what was expected, yes.

.

Taz said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

The U.K. is not doing enough to get to net zero, in a report from a Tory MP who is standing down at the next election.

He is standing down to focus his future career, coincidentally, on Britain’s net zero transformation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64257057

Of course.
Only reasonable for a Tory to go where the money is. That hardly detracts from the conclusions of the report.

Of all of those it's the phasing out of gas boilers that is the most unrealistic.

Heat pumps are not suitable for many properties....

Banning new gas boilers in ten years time would give well over a decade to fix that, since you could still fit one in 2032 and continue to use it beyond that. I don't see how that's massively onerous.

And the rule would force investment to make the change feasible.

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

The U.K. is not doing enough to get to net zero, in a report from a Tory MP who is standing down at the next election.

He is standing down to focus his future career, coincidentally, on Britain’s net zero transformation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64257057

Of course.
Only reasonable for a Tory to go where the money is. That hardly detracts from the conclusions of the report.

Of all of those it's the phasing out of gas boilers that is the most unrealistic.

Why ?
The suggestion is for phasing out new gas boilers in a decade's time - not all gas boilers.
Seems achievable to me.

Gas boilers in all properties have a lifespan (typically 15-20 years max) so will all eventually need to be replaced. I presume this covers that. So, by then, anyone who needs one will have to do 'something else'.

A few issues:

(1) Air and ground source heat pumps are extremely expensive and very few can afford them
(2) We have virtually no district hydrogen networks or grids (in fact, at present, I think we actually have none)
(3) Pumps require very very good insulation for the limited heat they generate and circulate through the radiators, more like 15-16C than 20-24C
(4) You can't boost them in cold weather like you can with gas and a thermostat
(5) Air source can be a bit noisy

What family is going to opt for that unless they have lots of money to spend on pumps, retrofit and supplement with a clean wood burner or electric heaters? My sister was quoted £40k for those.

I expect a 5-15% roll out by 2030 at present. The tech isn't good enough, nor is the infrastructure, nor is the government support.

Ecoshaming and hectoring will only get HMG/campaigners so far, but people aren't going to risk bankrupting themselves to make their homes and families cold.

Everyone needs to get real.

tlg86 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Taz said:

UK economy grows by 0.1% against a forecast of a fall of 0.3%.

Good news

I have a feeling this year is going to be much better than expected.

Remember, the impact of interest rate rises hasn't really started to feed through into the housing market. A friend of mine is desperately looking to find a house to buy before his very good two year mortgage offer expires at the end of March.

Fox Jr is noticing a significant drop off in new instructions at his legal firm for domestic properties.

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Boris Johnson could agree not to challenge Rishi Sunak in exchange for the promise of a safe seat at the next election, friends of the former prime minister have said.

Johnson would “leverage” his position over Sunak if the Conservatives did badly in the local elections in May under plans being discussed by his allies.

Four months after he left Downing Street, a determined group of Johnson’s supporters still hope he will return as prime minister before the next general election.

One close ally of the prime minister said that the number of Conservative MPs who wanted Johnson to oust Sunak amounted to “only two dozen, maybe three dozen at most” and warned: “We would just look ridiculous if we changed PM again. Most people get that.”

Yet the former prime minister is unlikely to quit politics. “He would find it very hard to give up,” the ally conceded.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-wont-oust-rishi-sunak-prime-minister-txhbtcswl

That feels like an offer Sunak should refuse.

Partly because only a fool would trust BoJo to keep his side of the deal. But mostly because if one high-profile backbencher is allowed to chicken run, others will want to as well. See 1997 for how good that looks.

From a naked party political point of view, I agree with you.

But what of the wider perspective. Who are the unlucky constituents who might get saddled with the FLSOJ as their absentee MP? If the good citizens of Uxbridge won't vote for him, why should anyone else?

Foxy said:

Big pro-EU swings across the bloc:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/12/support-for-leaving-eu-has-fallen-significantly-across-bloc-since-brexit

Similar swing to Pro EU here...

Punishment beating approach by the EU achieving its intended result. Pour encourager Les Others (as Private Eye might say).

Taz said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

The U.K. is not doing enough to get to net zero, in a report from a Tory MP who is standing down at the next election.

He is standing down to focus his future career, coincidentally, on Britain’s net zero transformation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64257057

Of course.
Only reasonable for a Tory to go where the money is. That hardly detracts from the conclusions of the report.

Of all of those it's the phasing out of gas boilers that is the most unrealistic.

Heat pumps are not suitable for many properties.

If we had a heat pump here we would have to certainly replace all our pipework and probably the radiators too.

However they are looking at Hydrogen boilers as an option so there is always that as an alternative. These have been in development and are currently being trialled. However there would be alot of work to do to get the network ready for hydrogen.

I think its more like 2040-2045, to be honest.

What will happen here is to use it as a bit of a burning platform for policy/infrastructure decisions, and then the date will be can-kicked out when it gets closer to the time in the late 2020s.

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

The U.K. is not doing enough to get to net zero, in a report from a Tory MP who is standing down at the next election.

He is standing down to focus his future career, coincidentally, on Britain’s net zero transformation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64257057

Of course.
Only reasonable for a Tory to go where the money is. That hardly detracts from the conclusions of the report.

Of all of those it's the phasing out of gas boilers that is the most unrealistic.

Why ?
The suggestion is for phasing out new gas boilers in a decade's time - not all gas boilers.
Seems achievable to me.

Gas boilers in all properties have a lifespan (typically 15-20 years max) so will all eventually need to be replaced. I presume this covers that. So, by then, anyone who needs one will have to do 'something else'.

A few issues:

(1) Air and ground source heat pumps are extremely expensive and very few can afford them
(2) We have virtually no district hydrogen networks or grids (in fact, at present, I think we actually have none)
(3) Pumps require very very good insulation for the limited heat they generate and circulate through the radiators, more like 15-16C than 20-24C
(4) You can't boost them in cold weather like you can with gas and a thermostat
(5) Air source can be a bit noisy

What family is going to opt for that unless they have lots of money to spend on pumps, retrofit and supplement with a clean wood burner or electric heaters? My sister was quoted £40k for those.

I expect a 5-15% roll out by 2030 at present. The tech isn't good enough, nor is the infrastructure, nor is the government support.

Ecoshaming and hectoring will only get HMG/campaigners so far, but people aren't going to risk bankrupting themselves to make their homes and families cold.

Everyone needs to get real.

Some friends have recently gone all "The Good Life" in their retirement. They had an air sourced heat pump installed, as well as other green features. Most of the time it does well, but really struggled (and used a lot of electricity) in the frozen snap before Christmas. It takes a lot more effort to extract heat from the air on such days.

tlg86 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Taz said:

UK economy grows by 0.1% against a forecast of a fall of 0.3%.

Good news

I have a feeling this year is going to be much better than expected.

Remember, the impact of interest rate rises hasn't really started to feed through into the housing market. A friend of mine is desperately looking to find a house to buy before his very good two year mortgage offer expires at the end of March.

True, I just think the economic doom and gloom is overdone and we're turning a bit of a corner: Ukraine will go into stalemate, inflation will decrease, interest rates will have a "new normal" and we'll go full post Covid - including China.

Not expecting fireworks - and plenty of things can screw it up - but I expect it to be better.

[And, no, it probably won't save the Conservatives: but it's now about providing a good defence story at the next GE that mitigates. ]

Taz said:

kamski said:

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh more evidence, if more proof were needed, that the University of Oxford needs to be razed. Also what is it about Swedes and their xenophobia and racism?

An Oxford academic has apologised for a 1996 email in which he wrote: “Blacks are more stupid than whites.”

In the message, Professor Nick Bostrom added: “I won’t have much success with most people if I speak like that . . . [it] seems to be synonymous with: I hate those bloody n*****s!!!!”

The University of Oxford said it had launched an investigation and condemned “in the strongest terms possible the views this particular academic expressed in his communications”.

Bostrom, a Swedish-born philosopher, is director of Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute. He made the comments as part of a mailing list for an internet forum, The Extropians. In a statement published on his website, Bostrom said he chose to apologise — and re-publish the message — after hearing rumours that past comments would be “maliciously framed” and used in “smear campaigns”.

Bostrom said that the Extropians forum had been a place for conversations about “science fiction, future technologies, society and all sorts of random things” but that there was also a lot of “silly, mistaken, or outright offensive stuff”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blacks-more-stupid-than-whites-wrote-oxford-don-8gsj8l0wf

I’m surprised his comments were even acceptable back then. I doubt holding him to account for those words would be a smear campaign. But he is the victim here.

Mind you in other race/Uni/woke News, and I am sure @Leon has seen it, fields are racist.

https://news.sky.com/story/university-department-removes-the-word-field-over-racist-connotations-12784945

They weren't. Though rather more common to hear back then.

Oi! Less of this "back then" crap. It was 1996 not 1956!

Making me feel ancient.

We are further away from 1996 today, than 1996 was to 1956. It is 27 years ago.

?????

NerysHughes said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

The U.K. is not doing enough to get to net zero, in a report from a Tory MP who is standing down at the next election.

He is standing down to focus his future career, coincidentally, on Britain’s net zero transformation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64257057

Of course.
Only reasonable for a Tory to go where the money is. That hardly detracts from the conclusions of the report.

Of all of those it's the phasing out of gas boilers that is the most unrealistic.

Why ?
The suggestion is for phasing out new gas boilers in a decade's time - not all gas boilers.
Seems achievable to me.

Gas boilers in all properties have a lifespan (typically 15-20 years max) so will all eventually need to be replaced. I presume this covers that. So, by then, anyone who needs one will have to do 'something else'.

A few issues:

(1) Air and ground source heat pumps are extremely expensive and very few can afford them
(2) We have virtually no district hydrogen networks or grids (in fact, at present, I think we actually have none)
(3) Pumps require very very good insulation for the limited heat they generate and circulate through the radiators, more like 15-16C than 20-24C
(4) You can't boost them in cold weather like you can with gas and a thermostat
(5) Air source can be a bit noisy

What family is going to opt for that unless they have lots of money to spend on pumps, retrofit and supplement with a clean wood burner or electric heaters? My sister was quoted £40k for those.

I expect a 5-15% roll out by 2030 at present. The tech isn't good enough, nor is the infrastructure, nor is the government support.

Ecoshaming and hectoring will only get HMG/campaigners so far, but people aren't going to risk bankrupting themselves to make their homes and families cold.

Everyone needs to get real.

Some friends have recently gone all "The Good Life" in their retirement. They had an air sourced heat pump installed, as well as other green features. Most of the time it does well, but really struggled (and used a lot of electricity) in the frozen snap before Christmas. It takes a lot more effort to extract heat from the air on such days.

You have hit the nail on the head. Heat Pumps do not work on cold days.

Frozen days more than merely cold ones.

Ground sourced ones work better on really cold days, or so I am told.

Personally, I would favour the German Passivhaus approach. Seems to work well in Norwich.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/09/social-housing-heating-bills-passivhaus-goldsmith-street-norwich?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

The U.K. is not doing enough to get to net zero, in a report from a Tory MP who is standing down at the next election.

He is standing down to focus his future career, coincidentally, on Britain’s net zero transformation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64257057

Of course.
Only reasonable for a Tory to go where the money is. That hardly detracts from the conclusions of the report.

Of all of those it's the phasing out of gas boilers that is the most unrealistic.

Well, perhaps it looks unrealistic now, but I have a reasonable degree of confidence that with the attention and investment that it could easily look a lot more realistic in five years time.

A lot of people said that wind energy would never amount to anything and now it is happening.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

American road safety chiefs are concerned that the much heavier weight of electric cars than their petrol equivalents may lead to more deaths.
https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/12/ev_weight_ntsb_death/

Never mind the weight of the cars they should think about the weight of the people in them.....

Heathener said:

Good thread, Mike i.e. well put.

The Conservatives cannot and will not win from here. The dye is cast and the longer it drags the more certain it becomes.

1997 Redux.

I thought you were a teacher? It’s die, not dye.
You are correct though, no way back from here.

IanB2 said:

Taz said:

UK economy grows by 0.1% against a forecast of a fall of 0.3%.

Good news

There’ll be several revisions yet, as further data come through, with plenty of time to recount the chickens.

The ONS tends to revise upwards, the initial read in the UK is negatively biased. If the initial annual read is 0.9% expect the final read to be 1.1%.

tlg86 said:

Taz said:

UK economy grows by 0.1% against a forecast of a fall of 0.3%.

Good news

Is it? To what extent are the forecasts based on how people ought to behave given the economic conditions? Are some people living beyond their means (to an even greater extent than normal) to sustain their standard of living?

Too much attention paid to headline growth figures and not enough to investment and exports is one reason Britain's economy has underperformed.

Scott_xP said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

This may mean Conservatives will do better than opinion polls suggest since they are leaking support to a party that will probably not stand in many seats.

I thought the refukkers said they would stand a full slate

MRDA applies. Let's see what happens on the day.

In other Anecdata, my Private Practice had its best month in December in terms of billings value. I haven't a free appointment slot until mid February, and mostly self funded rather than insured. Some parts of the service sector of the economy are doing quite well.

swing_voter said:

Tory MPs seem to have lost their reputation for cool rational decision making about their leaders, so depending on how the May locals go this Summer /early Autumn could be a very difficult time for Mr Sunak, who I dont feel has a hard core faction willing to fight for him personally.. however the Tories have an outstanding capacity to fight elections, I must admit I'd welcome a '97 style wipeout but I dont see it happening (quite yet).

Rishi is helped by the fact the Tories only got 28% in the local elections in May 2019 when the seats up in May were last up, which is not much more than the current average Tory voteshare of about 25/26% anyway.

So while they may lose some seats to Labour, the losses may not be too heavy and the Tories might even pick up a few LD seats given the LDs got 19% in the 2019 locals which is about 10% higher than they are polling now

Geert Wilders. Jesus

FeersumEnjineeya said:

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

The U.K. is not doing enough to get to net zero, in a report from a Tory MP who is standing down at the next election.

He is standing down to focus his future career, coincidentally, on Britain’s net zero transformation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64257057

Of course.
Only reasonable for a Tory to go where the money is. That hardly detracts from the conclusions of the report.

Of all of those it's the phasing out of gas boilers that is the most unrealistic.

Well, perhaps it looks unrealistic now, but I have a reasonable degree of confidence that with the attention and investment that it could easily look a lot more realistic in five years time.

A lot of people said that wind energy would never amount to anything and now it is happening.

Yup. Progress towards a sustainable existence is a constant struggle against defeatism. Just as with wind power, the same types who are ridiculing heat pumps and the like now will no doubt be taking credit for them in a couple of decades.

Pointing out the problems and demanding answers is not defeatism, it's realism.

I'm tired of armchair commentators who know nothing about what they're talking about passing judgement on those who do, and have to do all the work, whilst they recline back in blissful spectation.

These are difficult problems,and they need careful thought, planning, resources and investment.

Leon said:

Geert Wilders. Jesus

That seems improbable.

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

Geert Wilders. Jesus

That seems improbable.

He has his disciples and often seems cross.

DougSeal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Boris Johnson could agree not to challenge Rishi Sunak in exchange for the promise of a safe seat at the next election, friends of the former prime minister have said.

Johnson would “leverage” his position over Sunak if the Conservatives did badly in the local elections in May under plans being discussed by his allies.

Four months after he left Downing Street, a determined group of Johnson’s supporters still hope he will return as prime minister before the next general election.

One close ally of the prime minister said that the number of Conservative MPs who wanted Johnson to oust Sunak amounted to “only two dozen, maybe three dozen at most” and warned: “We would just look ridiculous if we changed PM again. Most people get that.”

Yet the former prime minister is unlikely to quit politics. “He would find it very hard to give up,” the ally conceded.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-wont-oust-rishi-sunak-prime-minister-txhbtcswl

I don’t understand the logic of this. If Johnson believes he can win the next election as leader then why not just successfullY challenge Sunak (and why challenge if you don’t think you can win) and keep his seat that way? Unless he thinks he’ll win the GE but lose Uxbridge in which case just become leader and arrange a safe seat for yourself? It makes zero sense to me.

You are expecting the actions of Boris Johnson to make sense?

Assume he's an idiot who's out for himself but has shocking judgement and things become easier.

In this case, assume he's scared of losing his seat and needs some leverage to switch to another one. So he's threatening a leadership run that he can't realistically sustain to blackmail Sunak.

Which works, until you remember even in the best case scenario he's going to need lots of help to survive the Standards and Privileges committee report and instead by showing Sunak he's a threat has just made it much more likely he'll lose the whip and be automatically deselected anyway.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

American road safety chiefs are concerned that the much heavier weight of electric cars than their petrol equivalents may lead to more deaths.
https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/12/ev_weight_ntsb_death/

It's rather bizarre that the example given is the electric Hummer, which weighs 9000 lbs, as opposed to the standard Hummer at 6000 lbs. A better question might be why the f*** does anyone need to drive such an enormous vehicle in the first place? There weren't any complaints about heavy vehicles as petrol cars got bigger and bigger.

The electric Hummer, in the UK, would require a lorry licence to drive, as it’s over 3.5t.

Just about any EV towing a trailer would have the same problem - not that you’d want to tow a trailer with an EV, because it kills the range.

Casino_Royale said:

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

The U.K. is not doing enough to get to net zero, in a report from a Tory MP who is standing down at the next election.

He is standing down to focus his future career, coincidentally, on Britain’s net zero transformation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64257057

Of course.
Only reasonable for a Tory to go where the money is. That hardly detracts from the conclusions of the report.

Of all of those it's the phasing out of gas boilers that is the most unrealistic.

Well, perhaps it looks unrealistic now, but I have a reasonable degree of confidence that with the attention and investment that it could easily look a lot more realistic in five years time.

A lot of people said that wind energy would never amount to anything and now it is happening.

But, it's not rhetoric that delivers that - it's people like me that deliver complex infrastructure. And retrofitting tens of millions of homes and their distribution networks (some over a century old) is a mammoth undertaking.

It's also far harder than the cost efficient mass manufacturing of wind turbines and their deployment offshore.

Sure. It's easy for a politician to set a target for a future time when they won't be in office and not do any of the grunt work that is required to make the target achievable - but Britain isn't operating in a vacuum here. We benefited from the work other countries did on wind turbines, and I expect we will benefit from the work done on home heating technology for other countries.

It's not like Britain has a particularly extreme climate. If heat pump technology can be developed to work for continental European homes then it will work just fine for British homes.

I would have done things the other way round - developed the technology and then used the law to mop up refuseniks - but I don't think the timeframe is that unrealistic for development of the technology.

We've had decades of people saying that things aren't possible in terms of moving away from fossil fuels, and the doomsters and gloomsters are always proved wrong. This is an achievable, solvable problem. Let's get it done.