Once inflation is in the system, it lasts far longer than the primary cause. That is why inflation has been hard to beat, every time, previously.
Somewhat ironic if Sunak fails on the one promise that looked an absolute banker "We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security."
More seriously CPI has been above 9% for nearly a year now and, as you imply, there must be a danger it becomes self-propelling.
I can think of no instance, around the world, where inflation decided to go away by itself. It has always required harsh economic medicine.
A few things should help:
1. A lot of the inflation last year was caused by the dollar's rapid rise - commodities are priced in dollars so there was a double whammy: the underlying commodity cost went up but the price in dollars went up even more. 2. Some commodity costs are indeed coming down. 3. We are getting into the comparables effect as we move into 2H.
What seems to be happening with food is a lag effect, particularly around things such as the cost of fertilizer. 2022's crops were planted using fertilizer bought in 2021. The cost of fertilizer tripled or more in 2022 due to Ukraine conflict and the cessation of much of the supply. 2023's food is therefore reflecting the ramp up in cost of fertilizer bought in 2022. Come into 2024 and that comparable - even if it doesn't improve - shouldn't get higher.
Regarding fuel prices, there are some basics which need to be understood to put pricing into context.
Firstly, nobody makes a living off selling fuel. Margins are wafer-thin if you compete with the supermarkets. Operators make their money from selling everything that isn't fuel - chocolate, coffee, snacks. For the smaller operators with less scope for these additional sales they are more reliant on making a profit from fuel hence the higher prices.
Secondly, not all wholesale prices are the same. The headline price is not the delivered price. And in this market as every other the more you buy the cheaper it is. So the big players with a lot of sites in easy tanker reach will pay significantly less than the small players in rural locations.
Combine those two together and its no wonder prices are higher and more varied than they used to be. The alternative is another round of mass closures.
I see it's "get excited by the difference between 9.9 and 10.4 on an estimated figure that will change in a month and change again in two months" day.
So there is a margin of error. However would you like that margin of error to be on 9.9 or 10.4.
This is like people claiming that a poll rating drop of 3% is within the margin of error and is therefore unchanged. The first part of the statement is true, the second isn't.
I'd rather not over-think on decimal points. Like with polling, maybe last month's figure was MoE-low and this month's is MoE-high, which would obscure an actual slight fall.
Better just to take a breath and say "inflation is still around 10% which is still too high".
Ian Duncan Smith will also vote against the government this afternoon.
What an opportunity for a strong leader to get rid of so much that is so damaging to the Tory brand.
Shagger withdrew the whip from so many of his own MPs. If Rishi did the same he could be free of the ERG the Johnsonites and the Trussites in one move.
He is going to lose anyway. Start the process of returning to conservatism now so that 2029 is winnable.
Ian Duncan Smith will also vote against the government this afternoon.
What an opportunity for a strong leader to get rid of so much that is so damaging to the Tory brand.
He can't without a membership mandate though. Starmer was only able to remove Corbynites and Corbyn himself from the Labour candidates list as he won a majority of the Labour membership in 2020 as well as having the support of most Labour MPs.
Sunak has most Conservative MPs behind him now but no mandate from members to deselect Johnson and the ERG
Boris Johnson will enjoy the rest of his life far less than he has enjoyed it up to now.
Yes, he will earn a load of money but he will no longer get the attention he had and he will never again hold high office or be considered someone who could hold high office. Instead, he will be just another yesterday's man, doomed to perform the same act over and over again for the guffawing group of rich fools who will be the only ones interested in hearing it.
Yeah I get all that but he was PM and vol au vents aside will probably go down as an Important Prime Minister who was at the helm while the UK experienced some epochal events. He was the Brexit PM and the Covid PM.
He may well bemoan the fact that the party is literally over, and who doesn't want to go on forever, but I'm sure that as ending in failure goes that will be slightly more tolerable.
Ian Duncan Smith will also vote against the government this afternoon.
What an opportunity for a strong leader to get rid of so much that is so damaging to the Tory brand.
I’m conflicted about IDS. The idea behind Universal Credit is a very good one, if ever implemented properly in full, and that was his baby. Very unusually for a politician he came into Government with a fully formed and sensible idea.
Ian Duncan Smith will also vote against the government this afternoon.
What an opportunity for a strong leader to get rid of so much that is so damaging to the Tory brand.
He can't without a membership mandate though. Starmer was only able to remove Corbynites and Corbyn himself from the Labour candidates list as he won a majority of the Labour membership in 2020 as well as having the support of most Labour MPs.
Sunak has most Conservative MPs behind him now but no mandate from members to deselect Johnson and the ERG
Boris didn't have a mandate to remove the whip from his opponents either. He only got to do it because they disqualified themselves by voting against the government on an effective vote of confidence.
Sunak doesn't have the same luxury today. If he makes it a vote of confidence he loses Labour's votes...
Wondering what Boris plan is. Smell a bit of a Churchill wilderness years strategy. It’s very symmetrical with Labour. Has there been an election, where the two previous leaders have been kicked out?
That Boris plan:
1. Make lots of money 2. Er... 3. That's it.
Ted Heath was worth £5m when he died, so could afford to hang around on the backbenches. Boris? Not so much...
Ian Duncan Smith will also vote against the government this afternoon.
What an opportunity for a strong leader to get rid of so much that is so damaging to the Tory brand.
He can't without a membership mandate though. Starmer was only able to remove Corbynites and Corbyn himself from the Labour candidates list as he won a majority of the Labour membership in 2020 as well as having the support of most Labour MPs.
Sunak has most Conservative MPs behind him now but no mandate from members to deselect Johnson and the ERG
The members cannot deselect him. He has the power to withdraw the whip. It's what a strong leader would do on an issue such as this.
Boris Johnson will enjoy the rest of his life far less than he has enjoyed it up to now.
Yes, he will earn a load of money but he will no longer get the attention he had and he will never again hold high office or be considered someone who could hold high office. Instead, he will be just another yesterday's man, doomed to perform the same act over and over again for the guffawing group of rich fools who will be the only ones interested in hearing it.
Yeah I get all that but he was PM and vol au vents aside will probably go down as an Important Prime Minister who was at the helm while the UK experienced some epochal events. He was the Brexit PM and the Covid PM.
He may well bemoan the fact that the party is literally over, and who doesn't want to go on forever, but I'm sure that as ending in failure goes that will be slightly more tolerable.
Just wait to see how he constructs his legacy.
Yup, There will come a time, probably surprisingly soon, when the Tory Party obsesses over what dark magic he used to be popular and get a majority of 80. Posters on here will still have him, but in the bubble he lives in folk will doff their caps to him, and he’ll keep on making lots of cash from speaking, and being quoted in the media as someone who’s view matters.
It's a three line government whip on a matter of huge importance. How can Sunak possibly justify not withdrawing the whip from anyone who votes against him?
Why doesn't Sunak simply withdraw the whip from those MPs voting against the Windsor Protocol? Gets rid of the loons and Boris in one go.
I wouldn't want British politics to go down the Irish route where TDs almost always lose the whip if they vote against the party leadership in any vote. It's a good thing for backbenchers to have the freedom to vote against their party leadership without that leading to the end of their political career.
Why doesn't Sunak simply withdraw the whip from those MPs voting against the Windsor Protocol? Gets rid of the loons and Boris in one go.
I wouldn't want British politics to go down the Irish route where TDs almost always lose the whip if they vote against the party leadership in any vote. It's a good thing for backbenchers to have the freedom to vote against their party leadership without that leading to the end of their political, career.
Indeed, on that basis Blair could have withdrawn the whip from all Labour MPs who voted against the Iraq war. Unless it is a confidence vote or an extremely tight vote MPs should not lose the party whip for voting with their conscience
Interesting "how do we deal with sewage in rivers and beaches piece on the BBC:
"It is going to be hugely expensive to put this right."
Most see the solution as building a waste water system that manages rainwater and waste water separately, so they no longer go to the same place to be treated.
But estimates for how much this updated sewage network might cost vary widely. The Lords report says they had heard estimates that range from tens of billions to hundreds of billions of pounds over decades.
The £56bn investment required in England is a good number, which I make around 6x total annual domestic water bills. So over 25 years that's going to be perhaps a 15-20% increase on bills throughout the period.
Which is somewhere between the Green handwaving "Industry profits will pay it all. Abracadabra", and the numbers several times larger from industry sources.
It's also in line with the numbers assessed for investment required across the EU under their water project.
The separation of waste water and rainwater will be mahoosively expensive in existing settlements. It's much cheaper to do in new developments - it's the case for the new town I live in, for example (along with SuDS, which helps).
There might be some 'cheaper' wins, e.g. for rain water off large car parks. But we're talking gigaproject, not megaproject.
Sounds about right.
One possibility is to divert runoff water where possible to new within-curtiledge systems (essentially SUDS) for many houses. Or incentivise domestic treatment plants.
£56bn is £2k per dwelling approx, which looks like a too-modest sum, perhaps.
Interesting "how do we deal with sewage in rivers and beaches piece on the BBC:
"It is going to be hugely expensive to put this right."
Most see the solution as building a waste water system that manages rainwater and waste water separately, so they no longer go to the same place to be treated.
But estimates for how much this updated sewage network might cost vary widely. The Lords report says they had heard estimates that range from tens of billions to hundreds of billions of pounds over decades.
The £56bn investment required in England is a good number, which I make around 6x total annual domestic water bills. So over 25 years that's going to be perhaps a 15-20% increase on bills throughout the period.
Which is somewhere between the Green handwaving "Industry profits will pay it all. Abracadabra", and the numbers several times larger from industry sources.
It's also in line with the numbers assessed for investment required across the EU under their water project.
But surely that replaces some expected capex so the net number will be lower?
It's a three line government whip on a matter of huge importance. How can Sunak possibly justify not withdrawing the whip from anyone who votes against him?
That’s not what normally happens for opposing a three line whip. Not in the U.K.
I see it's "get excited by the difference between 9.9 and 10.4 on an estimated figure that will change in a month and change again in two months" day.
So there is a margin of error. However would you like that margin of error to be on 9.9 or 10.4.
This is like people claiming that a poll rating drop of 3% is within the margin of error and is therefore unchanged. The first part of the statement is true, the second isn't.
I'd rather not over-think on decimal points. Like with polling, maybe last month's figure was MoE-low and this month's is MoE-high, which would obscure an actual slight fall.
Better just to take a breath and say "inflation is still around 10% which is still too high".
True and maybe it is dancing on a pin head because as you say what is important is it is still around 10% which is too high, but trends matter and although your example is valid it can go the way which makes it much worse.
Plato many moons ago tried to argue a big movement in the polls for a party (I can't remember which) were effectively unchanged because if you considered the margin of error in each case going in opposite directions they just intersected. That is nonsense because although it is true, the probability of it being the case is very small.
All poll ratings have a margin of error (normally 3%). All polls have a probability of being an outlier (normally 5%). However no matter how you cut it you always want your poll rating to be higher than before and that just isn't just wishful thinking but mathematics..
I'm surprised that Liz Truss is voting against the Windsor Framework. One of the few credits that I was willing to give her for her short tenure as PM was that she started the process of having sensible negotiations with the EU over the NI protocol. The ministers who saw that process to a conclusion were her appointments. It damages what little remains of her reputation for her to vote against the end result of the process she started.
Interesting "how do we deal with sewage in rivers and beaches piece on the BBC:
"It is going to be hugely expensive to put this right."
Most see the solution as building a waste water system that manages rainwater and waste water separately, so they no longer go to the same place to be treated.
But estimates for how much this updated sewage network might cost vary widely. The Lords report says they had heard estimates that range from tens of billions to hundreds of billions of pounds over decades.
The £56bn investment required in England is a good number, which I make around 6x total annual domestic water bills. So over 25 years that's going to be perhaps a 15-20% increase on bills throughout the period.
Which is somewhere between the Green handwaving "Industry profits will pay it all. Abracadabra", and the numbers several times larger from industry sources.
It's also in line with the numbers assessed for investment required across the EU under their water project.
But surely that replaces some expected capex so the net number will be lower?
This report is the source of the 56bn figure. Perhaps it's Net
Why doesn't Sunak simply withdraw the whip from those MPs voting against the Windsor Protocol? Gets rid of the loons and Boris in one go.
I wouldn't want British politics to go down the Irish route where TDs almost always lose the whip if they vote against the party leadership in any vote. It's a good thing for backbenchers to have the freedom to vote against their party leadership without that leading to the end of their political, career.
On certain issues yes, backbench "independence" is a good thing, however, when it comes to Brexit it's just a nightmare.
Everyone is sick and tired of hearing about it at this point. Rish has come up with a perfectly reasonable deal over the NI protocol which gives something to all sides. They should just vote for the deal and then please, please, please let us all move on.
Oh and in Northern Ireland a way should be found to restore the Assembly with or without DUP participation. In effect the DUP should be "empty chaired" from the Assembly. If they don't want to take their seats then that's up to them but they shouldn't be allowed to delay business taking place any further....
Why doesn't Sunak simply withdraw the whip from those MPs voting against the Windsor Protocol? Gets rid of the loons and Boris in one go.
Withdrawing the whip makes them martyrs for a cause. Fuels their grievances etc. best to effectively ignore them and let them see that their voice means very little anymore.
It's a three line government whip on a matter of huge importance. How can Sunak possibly justify not withdrawing the whip from anyone who votes against him?
Pretty easily, on the basis that it's been the long-established custom and convention that MPs can rebel against the party whip without losing it. The occasions when the whip has been taken away from MPs for rebelling against it are pretty rare, and I don't think it was good for British politics, or the Conservative Party, for Boris Johnson to have removed the whip from so many Tory MPs who disagreed with him.
There should be a prize for the first to come up with something both original and interesting on the matter. It won't be me.....in fact no winner is trading at 1.57.
We’re starting to see the reality of an OrBat of thousands of tanks (for any nation other than the USA). Past the top layer, they are paper tigers. All that being said, quantity does still have a quality all of its own.
Wondering what Boris plan is. Smell a bit of a Churchill wilderness years strategy. It’s very symmetrical with Labour. Has there been an election, where the two previous leaders have been kicked out?
That Boris plan:
1. Make lots of money 2. Er... 3. That's it.
Ted Heath was worth £5m when he died, so could afford to hang around on the backbenches. Boris? Not so much...
Why doesn't Sunak simply withdraw the whip from those MPs voting against the Windsor Protocol? Gets rid of the loons and Boris in one go.
Withdrawing the whip makes them martyrs for a cause. Fuels their grievances etc. best to effectively ignore them and let them see that their voice means very little anymore.
Withdrawing the whip but not kicking them out of the party until at least the GE, is clearly worse than both not withdrawing the whip, or withdrawing the whip and kicking them out. He probably does not have the political capital for the latter so is left with doing nothing.
Why doesn't Sunak simply withdraw the whip from those MPs voting against the Windsor Protocol? Gets rid of the loons and Boris in one go.
Withdrawing the whip makes them martyrs for a cause. Fuels their grievances etc. best to effectively ignore them and let them see that their voice means very little anymore.
Yes, which is why Corbyn should get the whip back too. If Blair and Brown can put up with him, so should Starmer.
Why doesn't Sunak simply withdraw the whip from those MPs voting against the Windsor Protocol? Gets rid of the loons and Boris in one go.
Good question. And a possible approach. It all depends on what Sunak's strategy is. He has choices, none of them easy. Time should tell which he goes for.
Choices include:
1 Turn back to One Nation Tories - challenge Labour on their own new ground
2 Try an alliance of One Nation and populist pensioners Braverman/Truss/Boris/Nadites - a square circle
3 Become a straight populist Daily Heil party.
Currently he is running (2). I think that's a mistake, but what do I know?
And it depends on whether he really wants to win a GE and form the next government; or lose decently; or lose catastrophically so that the party can bury itself and start again.
Running (2) indicates that he wants to try to actually win the next election. This is high risk and depends, I think, on Labour making mistakes, forcing the millions of centrists who the Tories have lost, back.
It's a three line government whip on a matter of huge importance. How can Sunak possibly justify not withdrawing the whip from anyone who votes against him?
Pretty easily, on the basis that it's been the long-established custom and convention that MPs can rebel against the party whip without losing it. The occasions when the whip has been taken away from MPs for rebelling against it are pretty rare, and I don't think it was good for British politics, or the Conservative Party, for Boris Johnson to have removed the whip from so many Tory MPs who disagreed with him.
It's not particularly uncommon for the whip to be suspended, though.
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
Even worse for the Russians, if you went on the defensive with the NATO kit you’d do it at night because of all the night vision kit. An unmodernised tank of that vintage just wouldn’t be in the fight, literally, unless the commander wanted to commit suicide.
Why doesn't Sunak simply withdraw the whip from those MPs voting against the Windsor Protocol? Gets rid of the loons and Boris in one go.
Withdrawing the whip makes them martyrs for a cause. Fuels their grievances etc. best to effectively ignore them and let them see that their voice means very little anymore.
Yes, which is why Corbyn should get the whip back too. If Blair and Brown can put up with him, so should Starmer.
Corbyn has a lot more baggage with him nowadays than he did under Blair or Brown so it is not a fair comparison at all.
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
I hare to enrage the usual suspects, but I fear not well.
But from the Russian's perspective: How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go up against a few Ukrainian servicemen with only rifles and no anti-tank weaponry? Considerably better, I think.
The way I see it: good tanks are better than poor tanks. Poor tanks are better than no tanks.
I know this is a prediction that going to turn out completely wrong but I have a feeling that after the vote the DUP will agree to return to Stormont.
They will say some balls about how they tried to change things but the UK parliament was against them but they stood their ground for their constituents and NI and now they will keep negotiating change in the protocol but will work for the benefit of the country in Stormont in the meantime.
They will have said what they need to and voted against in order to shore up their support but probably a large amount of them think the Windsor agreement is not the worst solution.
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
I hare to enrage the usual suspects, but I fear not well.
But from the Russian's perspective: How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go up against a few Ukrainian servicemen with only rifles and no anti-tank weaponry? Considerably better, I think.
The way I see it: good tanks are better than poor tanks. Poor tanks are better than no tanks.
How’s about a few Ukranian servicemen, with an NLAW or two? There’s still plenty of those around.
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
I think tank vs tank battles are rare, and rather like the old water cooled maxim guns, old weapons still work. Indeed with simpler mechanical underpinnings in many ways easier to keep in the battlefield.
The biggest threat to the Leopards etc is surely anti-tank missiles and artillery. Hence the importance of a combined arms approach .
Regarding fuel prices, there are some basics which need to be understood to put pricing into context.
Firstly, nobody makes a living off selling fuel. Margins are wafer-thin if you compete with the supermarkets. Operators make their money from selling everything that isn't fuel - chocolate, coffee, snacks. For the smaller operators with less scope for these additional sales they are more reliant on making a profit from fuel hence the higher prices.
Secondly, not all wholesale prices are the same. The headline price is not the delivered price. And in this market as every other the more you buy the cheaper it is. So the big players with a lot of sites in easy tanker reach will pay significantly less than the small players in rural locations.
Combine those two together and its no wonder prices are higher and more varied than they used to be. The alternative is another round of mass closures.
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
I hare to enrage the usual suspects, but I fear not well.
But from the Russian's perspective: How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go up against a few Ukrainian servicemen with only rifles and no anti-tank weaponry? Considerably better, I think.
The way I see it: good tanks are better than poor tanks. Poor tanks are better than no tanks.
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
I think there was an old artillery piece that Ukraine literally took out of a museum, so if the Russians are determined to keep fighting, and can't find anyone to supply them with better equipment, then eventually they will doubtless press into service anything that can move and has more armour than a Toyota Landcruiser.
I would have thought that sourcing ammunition for it might be a bit problematic, though.
I know this is a prediction that going to turn out completely wrong but I have a feeling that after the vote the DUP will agree to return to Stormont.
They will say some balls about how they tried to change things but the UK parliament was against them but they stood their ground for their constituents and NI and now they will keep negotiating change in the protocol but will work for the benefit of the country in Stormont in the meantime.
They will have said what they need to and voted against in order to shore up their support but probably a large amount of them think the Windsor agreement is not the worst solution.
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
I hare to enrage the usual suspects, but I fear not well.
But from the Russian's perspective: How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go up against a few Ukrainian servicemen with only rifles and no anti-tank weaponry? Considerably better, I think.
The way I see it: good tanks are better than poor tanks. Poor tanks are better than no tanks.
I partly agree with you, and we can’t know the tactical conditions sat here, but even in a sector with no Ukrainian tanks I wouldn’t want to command one of those things where there’s likely NLAW and Javelin. And I’d query T55 vs. even the Bradleys the US is sending.
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
I think tank vs tank battles are rare, and rather like the old water cooled maxim guns, old weapons still work. Indeed with simpler mechanical underpinnings in many ways easier to keep in the battlefield.
The biggest threat to the Leopards etc is surely anti-tank missiles and artillery. Hence the importance of a combined arms approach .
The last great tank battle was the Battle of Norfolk in 1991.
Regarding fuel prices, there are some basics which need to be understood to put pricing into context.
Firstly, nobody makes a living off selling fuel. Margins are wafer-thin if you compete with the supermarkets. Operators make their money from selling everything that isn't fuel - chocolate, coffee, snacks. For the smaller operators with less scope for these additional sales they are more reliant on making a profit from fuel hence the higher prices.
Secondly, not all wholesale prices are the same. The headline price is not the delivered price. And in this market as every other the more you buy the cheaper it is. So the big players with a lot of sites in easy tanker reach will pay significantly less than the small players in rural locations.
Combine those two together and its no wonder prices are higher and more varied than they used to be. The alternative is another round of mass closures.
A rural petrol station in Argyll.
Puts things in perspective - no prices for the latter, but I expect the pertrol is far cheaper per litre than the coffee!
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
I think tank vs tank battles are rare, and rather like the old water cooled maxim guns, old weapons still work. Indeed with simpler mechanical underpinnings in many ways easier to keep in the battlefield.
The biggest threat to the Leopards etc is surely anti-tank missiles and artillery. Hence the importance of a combined arms approach .
The last great tank battle was the Battle of Norfolk in 1991.
No, it will have been in Donetsk at some point in the last six months.
Interesting "how do we deal with sewage in rivers and beaches piece on the BBC:
"It is going to be hugely expensive to put this right."
Most see the solution as building a waste water system that manages rainwater and waste water separately, so they no longer go to the same place to be treated.
But estimates for how much this updated sewage network might cost vary widely. The Lords report says they had heard estimates that range from tens of billions to hundreds of billions of pounds over decades.
The £56bn investment required in England is a good number, which I make around 6x total annual domestic water bills. So over 25 years that's going to be perhaps a 15-20% increase on bills throughout the period.
Which is somewhere between the Green handwaving "Industry profits will pay it all. Abracadabra", and the numbers several times larger from industry sources.
It's also in line with the numbers assessed for investment required across the EU under their water project.
The separation of waste water and rainwater will be mahoosively expensive in existing settlements. It's much cheaper to do in new developments - it's the case for the new town I live in, for example (along with SuDS, which helps).
There might be some 'cheaper' wins, e.g. for rain water off large car parks. But we're talking gigaproject, not megaproject.
Sounds about right.
One possibility is to divert runoff water where possible to new within-curtiledge systems (essentially SUDS) for many houses. Or incentivise domestic treatment plants.
£56bn is £2k per dwelling approx, which looks like a too-modest sum, perhaps.
Many, many houses have guttering run-off that goes straight into the shared sewage drains. Separating them off at that level will be mahoosively difficult. Then you need separate rainwater sewers to take the rainwater... somewhere. Which is why SuDS is such a good idea - it doesn't have to be taken far.
We'd need a network of rainwater sewers. In my town, which has been designed around this, there are several dry gullies / reed beds that are designed to fill up with water during heavy rain, and slowly release it into the local brook via lakes that can also hold a lot of runoff. You can see some here, to the northwest of Oaks Wood, that deal with runoff from the business park:
In an idea world, with infinite money (yes, I know...) we'd do it properly, and rebuild our city centre road network properly, with the new drains put in along with good pavements for pedestrians and cycle paths, and power and comms all commonly ducted for ease of access. And electric car charging points. And minor roads paved with setts, not tarmac, which reduces runoff as well.
It'd cost more, but if we're digging up the roads in the first place...
Interesting "how do we deal with sewage in rivers and beaches piece on the BBC:
"It is going to be hugely expensive to put this right."
Most see the solution as building a waste water system that manages rainwater and waste water separately, so they no longer go to the same place to be treated.
But estimates for how much this updated sewage network might cost vary widely. The Lords report says they had heard estimates that range from tens of billions to hundreds of billions of pounds over decades.
The £56bn investment required in England is a good number, which I make around 6x total annual domestic water bills. So over 25 years that's going to be perhaps a 15-20% increase on bills throughout the period.
Which is somewhere between the Green handwaving "Industry profits will pay it all. Abracadabra", and the numbers several times larger from industry sources.
It's also in line with the numbers assessed for investment required across the EU under their water project.
It’s why it had been kicked down the road for years.
As a nationalised industry, the areas yet said no.
Privatised, the regulator has three priorities - water quality from the tap, low bills and low disruption from digging up roads.
Politically, reducing sewage outflow like that involves higher bills for a decade. Then a benefit that is actually noticed by a minority of the population. Most people in the country will never touch river water or seawater here.
This is not a pub excusing the issue - but in order to fix a problem it is important to understand why it wasn’t fixed previously.
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
I hare to enrage the usual suspects, but I fear not well.
But from the Russian's perspective: How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go up against a few Ukrainian servicemen with only rifles and no anti-tank weaponry? Considerably better, I think.
The way I see it: good tanks are better than poor tanks. Poor tanks are better than no tanks.
I partly agree with you, and we can’t know the tactical conditions sat here, but even in a sector with no Ukrainian tanks I wouldn’t want to command one of those things where there’s likely NLAW and Javelin. And I’d query T55 vs. even the Bradleys the US is sending.
The advantage of the T55 is solely that it would fare better than an SUV when faced with small arms fire. It's not going to punch a hole through Ukrainian defensive lines and lead an assault on Dnipro, but the front line is long - how many NLAWs will Ukraine have per 100km of front line?
Russia is desperately trying to prolong the conflict in the hope that something will turn up.
No, I don't think he was a wanker, TSE. He was implementing the laws as they stand. It is all new territory and they struggled with a somewhat unusual and anomolous situation. The tackler does have a duty of care but what if he is taking reasonable steps to protect himself, as Steward was? As they stand, there is no mitgation. I expect we'll see that altered.
I'm not talking from my pocket here. The decision cost me money, TSE, and you know how I feel about money.
Edit: Meanwhile the Aussies are winning me plenty wonga. Keep hitting those loose shots lads!
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
I hare to enrage the usual suspects, but I fear not well.
But from the Russian's perspective: How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go up against a few Ukrainian servicemen with only rifles and no anti-tank weaponry? Considerably better, I think.
The way I see it: good tanks are better than poor tanks. Poor tanks are better than no tanks.
I partly agree with you, and we can’t know the tactical conditions sat here, but even in a sector with no Ukrainian tanks I wouldn’t want to command one of those things where there’s likely NLAW and Javelin. And I’d query T55 vs. even the Bradleys the US is sending.
I wouldn't want to be in any tank with an enemy that has any western or Russian anti-tank weapons nearby. Yes, modern tanks may offer you more protection, but it's not total protection.
And yes, I agree that the T-55 should be pants against any modern kit. But they might still be better than not having a tank.
Why doesn't Sunak simply withdraw the whip from those MPs voting against the Windsor Protocol? Gets rid of the loons and Boris in one go.
Good question. And a possible approach. It all depends on what Sunak's strategy is. He has choices, none of them easy. Time should tell which he goes for.
Choices include:
1 Turn back to One Nation Tories - challenge Labour on their own new ground
2 Try an alliance of One Nation and populist pensioners Braverman/Truss/Boris/Nadites - a square circle
3 Become a straight populist Daily Heil party.
Currently he is running (2). I think that's a mistake, but what do I know?
And it depends on whether he really wants to win a GE and form the next government; or lose decently; or lose catastrophically so that the party can bury itself and start again.
Running (2) indicates that he wants to try to actually win the next election. This is high risk and depends, I think, on Labour making mistakes, forcing the millions of centrists who the Tories have lost, back.
Yep. I think 'lose but not too badly' being his actual goal - and therefore driving the strategy - is one of those notions that make sense in punditland but don't reflect how life is. He's the PM and will want to remain so, therefore will be trying every trick in the book to win the election.
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
I hare to enrage the usual suspects, but I fear not well.
But from the Russian's perspective: How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go up against a few Ukrainian servicemen with only rifles and no anti-tank weaponry? Considerably better, I think.
The way I see it: good tanks are better than poor tanks. Poor tanks are better than no tanks.
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
I hare to enrage the usual suspects, but I fear not well.
But from the Russian's perspective: How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go up against a few Ukrainian servicemen with only rifles and no anti-tank weaponry? Considerably better, I think.
The way I see it: good tanks are better than poor tanks. Poor tanks are better than no tanks.
I partly agree with you, and we can’t know the tactical conditions sat here, but even in a sector with no Ukrainian tanks I wouldn’t want to command one of those things where there’s likely NLAW and Javelin. And I’d query T55 vs. even the Bradleys the US is sending.
The Bradley has two TOW anti-tank missiles, enough to scare a Russian tank in Ukraine of any vintage.
Once inflation is in the system, it lasts far longer than the primary cause. That is why inflation has been hard to beat, every time, previously.
Nonetheless you might have expected falling energy prices to make some difference.
You would. The price I notice most is tfe cost of filling up my car.
Found a garage where diesel is 151p per litre.
The snag is it's in the middle (and I do mean the middle) of Wolverhampton.
You have to factor in the cost of getting g there. That price is about on the money afaik. All the other stations are ripping you off. Shell near me is 172.9 ffs cheapest is tesco in Shoreham at 164.9
Here it varies 152 - 163, it is blatant robbery by petrol stations. Lucky I only fill up every 4-6 weeks as I have the extended 75 litre tank, so can do it at best possible prices when it suits.
Hi Malc. I note your post and also @squareroot2 has posted on this a few times. I'm not an expert on this by any stretch of the imagination, but surely there is a free market in petrol. Petrol is a commodity so the base price is the same for everyone. It will then vary for petrol station to petrol station depending on added overheads eg transport and also variable profit margins depending on scarcity of otherwise of local petrol stations, eg higher on motorways, lower where there are competing stations.
What am I missing?
Look at what the petrol retailers association are saying
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
I hare to enrage the usual suspects, but I fear not well.
But from the Russian's perspective: How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go up against a few Ukrainian servicemen with only rifles and no anti-tank weaponry? Considerably better, I think.
The way I see it: good tanks are better than poor tanks. Poor tanks are better than no tanks.
I partly agree with you, and we can’t know the tactical conditions sat here, but even in a sector with no Ukrainian tanks I wouldn’t want to command one of those things where there’s likely NLAW and Javelin. And I’d query T55 vs. even the Bradleys the US is sending.
The advantage of the T55 is solely that it would fare better than an SUV when faced with small arms fire. It's not going to punch a hole through Ukrainian defensive lines and lead an assault on Dnipro, but the front line is long - how many NLAWs will Ukraine have per 100km of front line?
Russia is desperately trying to prolong the conflict in the hope that something will turn up.
During the first Gulf War, some Bradleys engaged what they thought were BMPs only. At night.
As they were trained, the gunners targeted their chain guns on the turret rings (base of the turret). Some of the "BMP"s took a bit of killing - after a few, they switched to the TOW missiles.
Come morning, they discovered that the Iraqi unit they had engaged was a mix of BMPs and T55. The chain guns were accurate enough that they hit multiple times in approximately the same place - and hammered through the T55 turret bases.
A T55 would also be vulnerable to just about any anti-tank weapon out there - even quite basic RPGs. As you say, better than nothing, but not much better than a later model APC.
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
I hare to enrage the usual suspects, but I fear not well.
But from the Russian's perspective: How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go up against a few Ukrainian servicemen with only rifles and no anti-tank weaponry? Considerably better, I think.
The way I see it: good tanks are better than poor tanks. Poor tanks are better than no tanks.
I partly agree with you, and we can’t know the tactical conditions sat here, but even in a sector with no Ukrainian tanks I wouldn’t want to command one of those things where there’s likely NLAW and Javelin. And I’d query T55 vs. even the Bradleys the US is sending.
I wouldn't want to be in any tank with an enemy that has any western or Russian anti-tank weapons nearby. Yes, modern tanks may offer you more protection, but it's not total protection.
And yes, I agree that the T-55 should be pants against any modern kit. But they might still be better than not having a tank.
We’re starting to see the reality of an OrBat of thousands of tanks (for any nation other than the USA). Past the top layer, they are paper tigers. All that being said, quantity does still have a quality all of its own.
Back in the day, they were very much a real threat - and the Soviets and their allies built over 100k of them. But unless heavily modified, they'd be useless against a modern IFV. Their thickest turret armour is only 200mm.
And not many of them left in Russia, according to Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/T-55_operators_and_variants ...As of 2013 there (were) 100 T-55s in reserve and less than 500 in storage, however those in storage may have been scrapped already...
No, I don't think he was a wanker, TSE. He was implementing the laws as they stand. It is all new territory and they struggled with a somewhat unusual and anomolous situation. The tackler does have a duty of care but what if he is taking reasonable steps to protect himself, as Steward was? As they stand, there is no mitgation. I expect we'll see that altered.
I'm not talking from my pocket here. The decision cost me money, TSE, and you know how I feel about money.
Edit: Meanwhile the Aussies are winning me plenty wonga. Keep hitting those loose shots lads!
Looked at in real time, there was nothing to support the red card.
The problem was when it was shown much slowed down, on the screens in the ground - and the howls of outrage from the Irish supporters. These slow-motion replays should be reserved for after the game.
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
I think tank vs tank battles are rare, and rather like the old water cooled maxim guns, old weapons still work. Indeed with simpler mechanical underpinnings in many ways easier to keep in the battlefield.
The biggest threat to the Leopards etc is surely anti-tank missiles and artillery. Hence the importance of a combined arms approach .
The last great tank battle was the Battle of Norfolk in 1991.
No, it will have been in Donetsk at some point in the last six months.
Tank vs Tank? - we haven't seen any footage of massed tank formations on either side. Apart from the Russian Traffic Jam, earlier in the war.
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
I think there was an old artillery piece that Ukraine literally took out of a museum, so if the Russians are determined to keep fighting, and can't find anyone to supply them with better equipment, then eventually they will doubtless press into service anything that can move and has more armour than a Toyota Landcruiser.
I would have thought that sourcing ammunition for it might be a bit problematic, though.
It's still in service around the world, so probably not.
I'm surprised that Liz Truss is voting against the Windsor Framework. One of the few credits that I was willing to give her for her short tenure as PM was that she started the process of having sensible negotiations with the EU over the NI protocol. The ministers who saw that process to a conclusion were her appointments. It damages what little remains of her reputation for her to vote against the end result of the process she started.
She, like her mentor Johnson, is an empty vessel prisoner of the headbanging right. She sold her soul to them because she calculated that was where the centre of gravity was in the voluntary party, and therefore the path to satisfy her ego. I guess she has decided that is where any path to rehabilitation is.
I hope she is wrong and I hope the Tory party continues on the more sensible grown-up trajectory that Sunak has set for it.
Once inflation is in the system, it lasts far longer than the primary cause. That is why inflation has been hard to beat, every time, previously.
Nonetheless you might have expected falling energy prices to make some difference.
You would. The price I notice most is tfe cost of filling up my car.
Found a garage where diesel is 151p per litre.
The snag is it's in the middle (and I do mean the middle) of Wolverhampton.
You have to factor in the cost of getting g there. That price is about on the money afaik. All the other stations are ripping you off. Shell near me is 172.9 ffs cheapest is tesco in Shoreham at 164.9
Here it varies 152 - 163, it is blatant robbery by petrol stations. Lucky I only fill up every 4-6 weeks as I have the extended 75 litre tank, so can do it at best possible prices when it suits.
Hi Malc. I note your post and also @squareroot2 has posted on this a few times. I'm not an expert on this by any stretch of the imagination, but surely there is a free market in petrol. Petrol is a commodity so the base price is the same for everyone. It will then vary for petrol station to petrol station depending on added overheads eg transport and also variable profit margins depending on scarcity of otherwise of local petrol stations, eg higher on motorways, lower where there are competing stations.
What am I missing?
D A Roberts at Whitchurch (a good benchmark for what fuel should really cost) is at 141.9p for diesel. Morrisons in Hyde is 151.9p My local "expensive" independent is at 159.0p. My local Morrisons (under 20 miles from Hyde) is at 166.9p.
25p/l is a good markup, especially given even D A Roberts must be making something on their pump prices.
The obvious explanation seems to be that the supermarkets have become somewhat of a cartel - it suits all of them not to pass on price cuts. ASDA used to lead the way (I think they viewed having cheap fuel as a good driver of other sales), but their stations were sold off about a year ago. Now they are just all "choosing" to not to undercut each other on price.
I think that the flaw in the economic theory which says it should find it's market price naturally comes from logic which goes like this:
We could cut our prices by 10p/l, still make 15p/l excess profit, and our sales volume will go through the roof - sufficient for us to make more money than at current prices. Until tomorrow, when all the other supermarkets match us. Then we'll be selling the same volume of fuel as before, but at a margin of 10p/l less. Or we could just price match and make the maximum profit possible on our current market share.
The best way to fix this would be to break up ownership - if every filling station was independently run rather than large chunks of the market moving in lock step, then enough would break ranks and cut prices to allow the market to determine the true price level.
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
I think there was an old artillery piece that Ukraine literally took out of a museum, so if the Russians are determined to keep fighting, and can't find anyone to supply them with better equipment, then eventually they will doubtless press into service anything that can move and has more armour than a Toyota Landcruiser.
I would have thought that sourcing ammunition for it might be a bit problematic, though.
It's still in service around the world, so probably not.
Lot of T55s kicking around - I knew a chap who used to have some for sale. Everything from live and running to a "unique restoration project".
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
I think there was an old artillery piece that Ukraine literally took out of a museum, so if the Russians are determined to keep fighting, and can't find anyone to supply them with better equipment, then eventually they will doubtless press into service anything that can move and has more armour than a Toyota Landcruiser.
I would have thought that sourcing ammunition for it might be a bit problematic, though.
It's still in service around the world, so probably not.
Lot of T55s kicking around - I knew a chap who used to have some for sale. Everything from live and running to a "unique restoration project".
A question: I assume that it's so old it doesn't have the same diameter barrel as more recent kit. *If* that's the case, how much ammo is there knocking about for a T-55?
Once inflation is in the system, it lasts far longer than the primary cause. That is why inflation has been hard to beat, every time, previously.
Nonetheless you might have expected falling energy prices to make some difference.
You would. The price I notice most is tfe cost of filling up my car.
Found a garage where diesel is 151p per litre.
The snag is it's in the middle (and I do mean the middle) of Wolverhampton.
You have to factor in the cost of getting g there. That price is about on the money afaik. All the other stations are ripping you off. Shell near me is 172.9 ffs cheapest is tesco in Shoreham at 164.9
Here it varies 152 - 163, it is blatant robbery by petrol stations. Lucky I only fill up every 4-6 weeks as I have the extended 75 litre tank, so can do it at best possible prices when it suits.
Hi Malc. I note your post and also @squareroot2 has posted on this a few times. I'm not an expert on this by any stretch of the imagination, but surely there is a free market in petrol. Petrol is a commodity so the base price is the same for everyone. It will then vary for petrol station to petrol station depending on added overheads eg transport and also variable profit margins depending on scarcity of otherwise of local petrol stations, eg higher on motorways, lower where there are competing stations.
What am I missing?
D A Roberts at Whitchurch (a good benchmark for what fuel should really cost) is at 141.9p for diesel. Morrisons in Hyde is 151.9p My local "expensive" independent is at 159.0p. My local Morrisons (under 20 miles from Hyde) is at 166.9p.
25p/l is a good markup, especially given even D A Roberts must be making something on their pump prices.
The obvious explanation seems to be that the supermarkets have become somewhat of a cartel - it suits all of them not to pass on price cuts. ASDA used to lead the way (I think they viewed having cheap fuel as a good driver of other sales), but their stations were sold off about a year ago. Now they are just all "choosing" to not to undercut each other on price.
I think that the flaw in the economic theory which says it should find it's market price naturally comes from logic which goes like this:
We could cut our prices by 10p/l, still make 15p/l excess profit, and our sales volume will go through the roof - sufficient for us to make more money than at current prices. Until tomorrow, when all the other supermarkets match us. Then we'll be selling the same volume of fuel as before, but at a margin of 10p/l less. Or we could just price match and make the maximum profit possible on our current market share.
The best way to fix this would be to break up ownership - if every filling station was independently run rather than large chunks of the market moving in lock step, then enough would break ranks and cut prices to allow the market to determine the true price level.
The other thing to check is the spec on the petrol they are selling. It's been a long time since I was in the oil business, but when the supermarkets got into petrol, they were buying cheaper, lower octane rated stuff. Your car would run fine (usually*), but you'd have to put your foot down more to get the same result...
*One supermarket bought some really shiny petrol that damaged peoples cars. The oil company I worked for bought the stuff off them and re-refined it. Turned out to have vast amounts of rust particles in it, IIRC.
Conservative polling now at 35% and only 10 points behind Labour.
I am very sceptical about that poll but it does seem as if the conservatives are now in the low thirties and Sunak overtook Starmer as best PM in the red wall seats in yesterday's poll
The circus around Johnson and his devotees is a distraction and is tedious in the extreme
Either the Red Wallers have less comprehension than is even imagined and don't understand the questions or more likely Redfield and Wilton have got their numbers confused
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
I think tank vs tank battles are rare, and rather like the old water cooled maxim guns, old weapons still work. Indeed with simpler mechanical underpinnings in many ways easier to keep in the battlefield.
The biggest threat to the Leopards etc is surely anti-tank missiles and artillery. Hence the importance of a combined arms approach .
The last great tank battle was the Battle of Norfolk in 1991.
No, it will have been in Donetsk at some point in the last six months.
Tank vs Tank? - we haven't seen any footage of massed tank formations on either side. Apart from the Russian Traffic Jam, earlier in the war.
I am assuming there will have been, the smoke just hasn’t cleared yet. There was a lot of US reporting of this briefing, for example. Propaganda of course, but there must have been some.
Edit - I also personally ignore the Gulf War(s) examples because if you outrange your enemy by a Km or two, you can fire on the move when they can’t, and you can operate at night when they can’t, then calling it a “battle” is a stretch.
LOL, they’ll be pulling T-34’s down from WWII memorials next.
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
I hare to enrage the usual suspects, but I fear not well.
But from the Russian's perspective: How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go up against a few Ukrainian servicemen with only rifles and no anti-tank weaponry? Considerably better, I think.
The way I see it: good tanks are better than poor tanks. Poor tanks are better than no tanks.
I partly agree with you, and we can’t know the tactical conditions sat here, but even in a sector with no Ukrainian tanks I wouldn’t want to command one of those things where there’s likely NLAW and Javelin. And I’d query T55 vs. even the Bradleys the US is sending.
I wouldn't want to be in any tank with an enemy that has any western or Russian anti-tank weapons nearby. Yes, modern tanks may offer you more protection, but it's not total protection.
And yes, I agree that the T-55 should be pants against any modern kit. But they might still be better than not having a tank.
Either it's a piss take, or pretty desperate.
The Russians have an awful lot more of more recent tank models in storage. Though how many they can easily reactivate is anyone's guess.
Comments
1. A lot of the inflation last year was caused by the dollar's rapid rise - commodities are priced in dollars so there was a double whammy: the underlying commodity cost went up but the price in dollars went up even more.
2. Some commodity costs are indeed coming down.
3. We are getting into the comparables effect as we move into 2H.
What seems to be happening with food is a lag effect, particularly around things such as the cost of fertilizer. 2022's crops were planted using fertilizer bought in 2021. The cost of fertilizer tripled or more in 2022 due to Ukraine conflict and the cessation of much of the supply. 2023's food is therefore reflecting the ramp up in cost of fertilizer bought in 2022. Come into 2024 and that comparable - even if it doesn't improve - shouldn't get higher.
Firstly, nobody makes a living off selling fuel. Margins are wafer-thin if you compete with the supermarkets. Operators make their money from selling everything that isn't fuel - chocolate, coffee, snacks. For the smaller operators with less scope for these additional sales they are more reliant on making a profit from fuel hence the higher prices.
Secondly, not all wholesale prices are the same. The headline price is not the delivered price. And in this market as every other the more you buy the cheaper it is. So the big players with a lot of sites in easy tanker reach will pay significantly less than the small players in rural locations.
Combine those two together and its no wonder prices are higher and more varied than they used to be. The alternative is another round of mass closures.
What an opportunity for a strong leader to get rid of so much that is so damaging to the Tory brand.
Better just to take a breath and say "inflation is still around 10% which is still too high".
He is going to lose anyway. Start the process of returning to conservatism now so that 2029 is winnable.
Sunak has most Conservative MPs behind him now but no mandate from members to deselect Johnson and the ERG
He may well bemoan the fact that the party is literally over, and who doesn't want to go on forever, but I'm sure that as ending in failure goes that will be slightly more tolerable.
Just wait to see how he constructs his legacy.
What time is the vote?
Popcorn at the ready for 2pm!
And then there’s his other stuff.
Sunak doesn't have the same luxury today. If he makes it a vote of confidence he loses Labour's votes...
His legacy is partying while others died.
That might be preferable to the alternative which would be the permanent shitshow that is Brexit.
Blair wasn’t the first
https://mobile.twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1638472120534458368
One possibility is to divert runoff water where possible to new within-curtiledge systems (essentially SUDS) for many houses. Or incentivise domestic treatment plants.
£56bn is £2k per dwelling approx, which looks like a too-modest sum, perhaps.
Plato many moons ago tried to argue a big movement in the polls for a party (I can't remember which) were effectively unchanged because if you considered the margin of error in each case going in opposite directions they just intersected. That is nonsense because although it is true, the probability of it being the case is very small.
All poll ratings have a margin of error (normally 3%). All polls have a probability of being an outlier (normally 5%). However no matter how you cut it you always want your poll rating to be higher than before and that just isn't just wishful thinking but mathematics..
(I haven't read it)
.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/storm-overflows-discharge-reduction-plan
And they do not appear to have been much modified, unlike the models the Czechs donated to Ukraine, which while somewhat limited in capability, are a credible light tank.
https://mezha.media/en/2022/09/20/the-m-55s-tank-a-deep-modernization-of-the-soviet-t-55-for-the-armed-forces/amp/
Everyone is sick and tired of hearing about it at this point. Rish has come up with a perfectly reasonable deal over the NI protocol which gives something to all sides. They should just vote for the deal and then please, please, please let us all move on.
Oh and in Northern Ireland a way should be found to restore the Assembly with or without DUP participation. In effect the DUP should be "empty chaired" from the Assembly. If they don't want to take their seats then that's up to them but they shouldn't be allowed to delay business taking place any further....
How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go, up against the 20-year-old NATO kit that’s about to ship to the Ukranians?
Choices include:
1 Turn back to One Nation Tories - challenge Labour on their own new ground
2 Try an alliance of One Nation and populist pensioners Braverman/Truss/Boris/Nadites - a square circle
3 Become a straight populist Daily Heil party.
Currently he is running (2). I think that's a mistake, but what do I know?
And it depends on whether he really wants to win a GE and form the next government; or lose decently; or lose catastrophically so that the party can bury itself and start again.
Running (2) indicates that he wants to try to actually win the next election. This is high risk and depends, I think, on Labour making mistakes, forcing the millions of centrists who the Tories have lost, back.
I hadn’t expected that.
But from the Russian's perspective: How do we think a 70-year-old T54 might go up against a few Ukrainian servicemen with only rifles and no anti-tank weaponry? Considerably better, I think.
The way I see it: good tanks are better than poor tanks. Poor tanks are better than no tanks.
Called it at the time, the ref’s a wanker.
He should have worn an Ireland jersey.
They will say some balls about how they tried to change things but the UK parliament was against them but they stood their ground for their constituents and NI and now they will keep negotiating change in the protocol but will work for the benefit of the country in Stormont in the meantime.
They will have said what they need to and voted against in order to shore up their support but probably a large amount of them think the Windsor agreement is not the worst solution.
The biggest threat to the Leopards etc is surely anti-tank missiles and artillery. Hence the importance of a combined arms approach .
I would have thought that sourcing ammunition for it might be a bit problematic, though.
...at all times, places and opportunities.
We'd need a network of rainwater sewers. In my town, which has been designed around this, there are several dry gullies / reed beds that are designed to fill up with water during heavy rain, and slowly release it into the local brook via lakes that can also hold a lot of runoff. You can see some here, to the northwest of Oaks Wood, that deal with runoff from the business park:
https://goo.gl/maps/2qEHqmL1pbW2JpcHA
In an idea world, with infinite money (yes, I know...) we'd do it properly, and rebuild our city centre road network properly, with the new drains put in along with good pavements for pedestrians and cycle paths, and power and comms all commonly ducted for ease of access. And electric car charging points. And minor roads paved with setts, not tarmac, which reduces runoff as well.
It'd cost more, but if we're digging up the roads in the first place...
He needs to be ruthless with these bastards. They've poisoned the party and British politics for long enough.
As a nationalised industry, the areas yet said no.
Privatised, the regulator has three priorities - water quality from the tap, low bills and low disruption from digging up roads.
Politically, reducing sewage outflow like that involves higher bills for a decade. Then a benefit that is actually noticed by a minority of the population. Most people in the country will never touch river water or seawater here.
This is not a pub excusing the issue - but in order to fix a problem it is important to understand why it wasn’t fixed previously.
Russia is desperately trying to prolong the conflict in the hope that something will turn up.
I'm not talking from my pocket here. The decision cost me money, TSE, and you know how I feel about money.
Edit: Meanwhile the Aussies are winning me plenty wonga. Keep hitting those loose shots lads!
And yes, I agree that the T-55 should be pants against any modern kit. But they might still be better than not having a tank.
Johnson
Truss
Duncan Smith
David Jones
Duddridge
Jenkins
Bone
Patel
Francois
Clarke
As they were trained, the gunners targeted their chain guns on the turret rings (base of the turret). Some of the "BMP"s took a bit of killing - after a few, they switched to the TOW missiles.
Come morning, they discovered that the Iraqi unit they had engaged was a mix of BMPs and T55. The chain guns were accurate enough that they hit multiple times in approximately the same place - and hammered through the T55 turret bases.
A T55 would also be vulnerable to just about any anti-tank weapon out there - even quite basic RPGs. As you say, better than nothing, but not much better than a later model APC.
Their thickest turret armour is only 200mm.
And not many of them left in Russia, according to Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/T-55_operators_and_variants
...As of 2013 there (were) 100 T-55s in reserve and less than 500 in storage, however those in storage may have been scrapped already...
The problem was when it was shown much slowed down, on the screens in the ground - and the howls of outrage from the Irish supporters. These slow-motion replays should be reserved for after the game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting
I hope she is wrong and I hope the Tory party continues on the more sensible grown-up trajectory that Sunak has set for it.
Morrisons in Hyde is 151.9p
My local "expensive" independent is at 159.0p.
My local Morrisons (under 20 miles from Hyde) is at 166.9p.
25p/l is a good markup, especially given even D A Roberts must be making something on their pump prices.
The obvious explanation seems to be that the supermarkets have become somewhat of a cartel - it suits all of them not to pass on price cuts.
ASDA used to lead the way (I think they viewed having cheap fuel as a good driver of other sales), but their stations were sold off about a year ago. Now they are just all "choosing" to not to undercut each other on price.
I think that the flaw in the economic theory which says it should find it's market price naturally comes from logic which goes like this:
We could cut our prices by 10p/l, still make 15p/l excess profit, and our sales volume will go through the roof - sufficient for us to make more money than at current prices. Until tomorrow, when all the other supermarkets match us. Then we'll be selling the same volume of fuel as before, but at a margin of 10p/l less. Or we could just price match and make the maximum profit possible on our current market share.
The best way to fix this would be to break up ownership - if every filling station was independently run rather than large chunks of the market moving in lock step, then enough would break ranks and cut prices to allow the market to determine the true price level.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1638470936910352386?s=20
Or
He knows he’s base.
*One supermarket bought some really shiny petrol that damaged peoples cars. The oil company I worked for bought the stuff off them and re-refined it. Turned out to have vast amounts of rust particles in it, IIRC.
Red Wall Approval Rating-
Sunak -21
Starmer +5
Best PM
Sunak 37%
Starmer 35%
Either the Red Wallers have less comprehension than is even imagined and don't understand the questions or more likely Redfield and Wilton have got their numbers confused
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/01/world/europe/ukraine-russia-tanks.html
Edit - I also personally ignore the Gulf War(s) examples because if you outrange your enemy by a Km or two, you can fire on the move when they can’t, and you can operate at night when they can’t, then calling it a “battle” is a stretch.
The Russians have an awful lot more of more recent tank models in storage. Though how many they can easily reactivate is anyone's guess.