The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
It (the first lockdown) was not needed but it is understandable why the government should have instigated it. The others were of course not needed either.
Remember the poll which said (was it?) 13% of people never wanted nightclubs to reopen.
I see the usual suspects are mithering on about Keir’s curry again.
We need another name for them, though, instead of “PB Tories”. In most cases they profess *not* to be outright Tories, merely concerned citizens who care very deeply for some reason about the contents of Keir’s rubbish bin while ignoring the burning slag heap commonly referred to as the Conservative Party.
I see the usual suspects are mithering on about Keir’s curry again.
We need another name for them, though, instead of “PB Tories”. In most cases they profess *not* to be outright Tories, merely concerned citizens who care very deeply for some reason about the contents of Keir’s rubbish bin while ignoring the burning slag heap commonly referred to as the Conservative Party.
Nah, he broke the rules. Of course the rules were fucking stupid but he broke them. If someone working in widgets in Slough had done the same thing and plod had noticed (of course they made it their business to notice such things during the pandemic) then they would have been done for it.
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.
Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.
I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.
And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.
How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.
Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao
Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.
We are slowing.
If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.
Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.
'We' is the world in general. Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset. https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
I see the usual suspects are mithering on about Keir’s curry again.
We need another name for them, though, instead of “PB Tories”. In most cases they profess *not* to be outright Tories, merely concerned citizens who care very deeply for some reason about the contents of Keir’s rubbish bin while ignoring the burning slag heap commonly referred to as the Conservative Party.
Nah, he broke the rules. Of course the rules were fucking stupid but he broke them. If someone working in widgets in Slough had done the same thing and plod had noticed (of course they made it their business to notice such things during the pandemic) then they would have been done for it.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
Did we really need a lockdown?
I think it's obvious that we needed people to reduce social contact to prevent spread of the virus, but did that require the force of law?
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
It (the first lockdown) was not needed but it is understandable why the government should have instigated it. The others were of course not needed either.
Remember the poll which said (was it?) 13% of people never wanted nightclubs to reopen.
That is what this government did to the country.
Agree entirely. Lamentably, however, the principal opposition called only for more lockdowns.
I see the usual suspects are mithering on about Keir’s curry again.
We need another name for them, though, instead of “PB Tories”. In most cases they profess *not* to be outright Tories, merely concerned citizens who care very deeply for some reason about the contents of Keir’s rubbish bin while ignoring the burning slag heap commonly referred to as the Conservative Party.
Nah, he broke the rules. Of course the rules were fucking stupid but he broke them. If someone working in widgets in Slough had done the same thing and plod had noticed (of course they made it their business to notice such things during the pandemic) then they would have been done for it.
BuT the EmAiLs!
I couldn't give a fuck about the emails - not seen them. He was having a(n after work) party during lockdown when it was illegal to do so.
I see the usual suspects are mithering on about Keir’s curry again.
We need another name for them, though, instead of “PB Tories”. In most cases they profess *not* to be outright Tories, merely concerned citizens who care very deeply for some reason about the contents of Keir’s rubbish bin while ignoring the burning slag heap commonly referred to as the Conservative Party.
When have I ignored the "burning slag heap commonly referred to as the Conservative Party" ?
I was criticising Johnson on here before it was popular, and giving reasons why I thought he'd be a terrible PM. I didn't say much about Truss, as I was too busy scoffing the popcorn. And I've said that the Conservative Party is tired, out of ideas, and rife with navel-gazing and infighting. I've called for an early General Election, and said I won't vote for the Conservatives. I've also said I can't see another good leader with any chance of getting the party's leadership once they're in opposition.
But that doesn't mean I cannot criticise the Labour Party, or its leader, does it?
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
It (the first lockdown) was not needed but it is understandable why the government should have instigated it. The others were of course not needed either.
Remember the poll which said (was it?) 13% of people never wanted nightclubs to reopen.
That is what this government did to the country.
My memory of that poll was that the anti clubbers were a larger group (20+%?). Plenty with that vibe right here on PB too…
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.
Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.
I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.
And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.
How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.
Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao
Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.
We are slowing.
If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.
Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.
'We' is the world in general. Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset. https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
The amounts directly recovered from crimes in the form of fines is always dwarfed by the policing and legal costs.
But imagine it the other way round, living in a country with no police and no legal system...
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
Did we really need a lockdown?
I think it's obvious that we needed people to reduce social contact to prevent spread of the virus, but did that require the force of law?
Good pandemic response should avoid any need for lockdowns. Lockdowns are last resorts. So, one can imagine a counter-factual where we didn’t need a lockdown. But that would have required a much better response in Jan-Mar, better test & trace measures, etc. If you don’t want lockdowns, you invest in public health.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
It (the first lockdown) was not needed but it is understandable why the government should have instigated it. The others were of course not needed either.
Remember the poll which said (was it?) 13% of people never wanted nightclubs to reopen.
That is what this government did to the country.
My memory of that poll was that the anti clubbers were a larger group (20+%?). Plenty with that vibe right here on PB too…
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
What Labour said before during or after does not change the law.
"Wordup Raynz, Big K here. U wanna party 2nite? Get some canz and da boyz round, mebbe a ruby? Best invite sum campaign peeps 2 so it looks legit, innit?"
There's your smoking gun. A party, not a work/campaign meeting
That would remove his 'dull' label once and for all. Deal sealed, majority in the bag.
Yeah, but, you know... Imagine the die hard Sunak fans chanting 'lock him up' about SKS at the Conservative election rallies at the next GE
I’m pleased to have you on side with this one Selebian, this isn’t going away for Starmer is it? Nailing Starmer’s Beergate dishonesty, as proved by the WhatsApp message being covered up and withheld from the public, will likely dominate next general election campaign for the Daily Mail and CCHQ.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
It (the first lockdown) was not needed but it is understandable why the government should have instigated it. The others were of course not needed either.
Remember the poll which said (was it?) 13% of people never wanted nightclubs to reopen.
That is what this government did to the country.
My memory of that poll was that the anti clubbers were a larger group (20+%?). Plenty with that vibe right here on PB too…
Yes, I think it was 20% never wanted night clubs to reopen. Though I don't think there were many on pb going quite that far! I think if that poll showed anything, it was the weakness of polling on hypothetical questions. I mean, I'm sure there was at least 20% of people who wouldn't care if nightclubs reopened - but I suspect the position that they should never be allowed to be reopen was possibly sincere but very weakly held.
I see the usual suspects are mithering on about Keir’s curry again.
We need another name for them, though, instead of “PB Tories”. In most cases they profess *not* to be outright Tories, merely concerned citizens who care very deeply for some reason about the contents of Keir’s rubbish bin while ignoring the burning slag heap commonly referred to as the Conservative Party.
Nah, he broke the rules. Of course the rules were fucking stupid but he broke them. If someone working in widgets in Slough had done the same thing and plod had noticed (of course they made it their business to notice such things during the pandemic) then they would have been done for it.
BuT the EmAiLs!
I couldn't give a fuck about the emails - not seen them. He was having a(n after work) party during lockdown when it was illegal to do so.
Sadly for you, Durham Constabulary investigated and found there was no case, except for one cooked up by Dan Hodges, James Delingpole’s son, and Big G.
Exciting as dams and Sir Keir's regurgitated curry are, other news.
I'd hazard a guess that winning by only 7pts would be disappointing for the prospects of 'We need change from the pro Brexit, anti immigration, pro NHS privatisation Tories' Labour.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
Did we really need a lockdown?
I think it's obvious that we needed people to reduce social contact to prevent spread of the virus, but did that require the force of law?
Good pandemic response should avoid any need for lockdowns. Lockdowns are last resorts. So, one can imagine a counter-factual where we didn’t need a lockdown. But that would have required a much better response in Jan-Mar, better test & trace measures, etc. If you don’t want lockdowns, you invest in public health.
I have a strong suspicion that the state of health required so that some people think lockdowns are unnecessary would always be just around the corner. Everyone has an agenda.
Look at the fuss and bother over disposable vapes. They interviewed someone on R4 from the BMA or somesuch who wanted them banned primarily because of their environmental impact. Oh yes and the health implications are as yet unproven but the environmental impact was very bad indeed.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
It (the first lockdown) was not needed but it is understandable why the government should have instigated it. The others were of course not needed either.
Remember the poll which said (was it?) 13% of people never wanted nightclubs to reopen.
That is what this government did to the country.
My memory of that poll was that the anti clubbers were a larger group (20+%?). Plenty with that vibe right here on PB too…
Google says 26%.
Yup. Absolutely shocking, although my feeling at the time was that very many PBers would have been with thar 26%. What an illiberal, authoritarian, terrifyingly judgemental population we became during that horrible time.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
Did we really need a lockdown?
I think it's obvious that we needed people to reduce social contact to prevent spread of the virus, but did that require the force of law?
Good pandemic response should avoid any need for lockdowns. Lockdowns are last resorts. So, one can imagine a counter-factual where we didn’t need a lockdown. But that would have required a much better response in Jan-Mar, better test & trace measures, etc. If you don’t want lockdowns, you invest in public health.
Completely agree that, ideally, public health fundamentals like test, trace and isolate should prevent the need for blanket reductions in social contact, but even when that approach fails, is a lockdown necessary?
We are a democracy. If the Prime Minister tells the nation that reducing social contact to a bare minimum is required to avoid a pandemic disaster, then surely we'd expect most citizens to voluntarily abide by such public health advice. We're not China. We don't need to pass laws on who can or cannot enter a private home.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
The amounts directly recovered from crimes in the form of fines is always dwarfed by the policing and legal costs.
But imagine it the other way round, living in a country with no police and no legal system...
The problem comes when political point-scoring overwhelmes the police budget to go after more serious crimes.
I only ever read or hear about Currygate on PB. It is not something ever encounter in real life.
Unlike Boris and his parties which (in my experience if his name is mentioned) is still brought up by a lot of people who formerly voted for him and feel betrayed.
I see the usual suspects are mithering on about Keir’s curry again.
We need another name for them, though, instead of “PB Tories”. In most cases they profess *not* to be outright Tories, merely concerned citizens who care very deeply for some reason about the contents of Keir’s rubbish bin while ignoring the burning slag heap commonly referred to as the Conservative Party.
Nah, he broke the rules. Of course the rules were fucking stupid but he broke them. If someone working in widgets in Slough had done the same thing and plod had noticed (of course they made it their business to notice such things during the pandemic) then they would have been done for it.
BuT the EmAiLs!
I couldn't give a fuck about the emails - not seen them. He was having a(n after work) party during lockdown when it was illegal to do so.
The police, who are empowered to decide and saw the evidence, decided otherwise. You, a random partisan online commenter, think otherwise. However can we choose between these two opinions?
Exciting as dams and Sir Keir's regurgitated curry are, other news.
I'd hazard a guess that winning by only 7pts would be disappointing for the prospects of 'We need change from the pro Brexit, anti immigration, pro NHS privatisation Tories' Labour.
I see the usual suspects are mithering on about Keir’s curry again.
We need another name for them, though, instead of “PB Tories”. In most cases they profess *not* to be outright Tories, merely concerned citizens who care very deeply for some reason about the contents of Keir’s rubbish bin while ignoring the burning slag heap commonly referred to as the Conservative Party.
Nah, he broke the rules. Of course the rules were fucking stupid but he broke them. If someone working in widgets in Slough had done the same thing and plod had noticed (of course they made it their business to notice such things during the pandemic) then they would have been done for it.
BuT the EmAiLs!
I couldn't give a fuck about the emails - not seen them. He was having a(n after work) party during lockdown when it was illegal to do so.
The police, who are empowered to decide and saw the evidence, decided otherwise. You, a random partisan online commenter, think otherwise. However can we choose between these two opinions?
Yes because the police have proven beyond any reasonable doubt what pillars of probity and independent free thinking they are.
How to choose between someone who exercises sound judgement and someone who believes anything the police tell them. How indeed.
Exciting as dams and Sir Keir's regurgitated curry are, other news.
I'd hazard a guess that winning by only 7pts would be disappointing for the prospects of 'We need change from the pro Brexit, anti immigration, pro NHS privatisation Tories' Labour.
What is the Union Divvie bar for a successful Labour by-election?
A cynic might suggest it would be five points better than the result...
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
Did we really need a lockdown?
I think it's obvious that we needed people to reduce social contact to prevent spread of the virus, but did that require the force of law?
Good pandemic response should avoid any need for lockdowns. Lockdowns are last resorts. So, one can imagine a counter-factual where we didn’t need a lockdown. But that would have required a much better response in Jan-Mar, better test & trace measures, etc. If you don’t want lockdowns, you invest in public health.
I have a strong suspicion that the state of health required so that some people think lockdowns are unnecessary would always be just around the corner. Everyone has an agenda.
Look at the fuss and bother over disposable vapes. They interviewed someone on R4 from the BMA or somesuch who wanted them banned primarily because of their environmental impact. Oh yes and the health implications are as yet unproven but the environmental impact was very bad indeed.
Everyone has an agenda.
Yes, people who work on pandemic preparedness have an agenda. That agenda is stopping pandemics! (Preceded by apologies and followed by any other business, and date of next meeting.)
Also makes it more likely that a critical report on Boris may lead to a similar suspension.
"Of the 40 MPs who voted against the motion and opposed Margaret Ferrier's suspension, 32 were Conservatives, two were DUP, two were Alba - Neale Hanvey and Kenny MacAskill - and one was Reclaim.
The Conservatives who backed her included former ministers David Davis and Jacob Rees-Mogg, and party grandees Sir Bill Cash and Sir Edward Leigh."
Russia blowing up the dam is going to have severe consequences. The act equates to the use of weapons of mass destruction under international law. ------ "Dams like the Dnipro dam in Nova Kahkovka are protected by the laws of war and the Geneva convention. Destroying it would be considered a weapon of mass destruction and an indiscriminate war crime. Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
'Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.'
Talking about Desert Storm, the Americans thought about blowing up the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers if the Iraqis used WMD in Desert Storm.
Colin Powell said they stopped when they realised it would cause more damage than nuking Baghdad and realised they would likely face war crimes charges.
It is interesting that an event we celebrate in film and memorial and which just had its 80th anniversary marked by a flypast of all the WW2 airfields in Lincolnshire would now be considered a war crime.
Also, an interesting story (mostly by two people who I know personally, Mike Trace and Rachel Wright) on the remarkable Taliban success in ending poppy production in the main province that grew it - impressive in its way (we never got remotely near achieving that level of reduction), though with likely mixed effects as described:
Also makes it more likely that a critical report on Boris may lead to a similar suspension.
I have family in Rutherglen. Will be making sure they all vote to recall their MP.
All family dynamics are different, but if some distant or even close relly started telling me how to vote, they'd get told to ram it.
They can vote for whoever they want to.
But I’ll be letting them know that there’s a recall petition active against the incumbent, for the reason that she had a positive covid test in London, and then spent five hours on the train bringing it back to Glasgow.
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
However we need oil and gas for the foreseeable future. Simply refusing new licenses to extract our own and reduce reliance on other nations is crazy. Richard Tyndall has posted quite a bit about it here.
Oil is used for far more than just "fossil fuels" and produces a wide range of products we simply do not have an easy option to replace.
Labour taking money from a donor who has a vested financial interest in onshore wind generation and then, by a happy coincidence, announcing their policy on North Sea Licenses is interesting.
Well perhaps the best option would be to stop burning the stuff and instead use it only for essential purposes. Then we wouldn't need so much of it.
This is something that many of us have been saying since long before climate change became a political issue. Hydrocarbons are just too valuable and useful to burn whien we have viable alternatives.
Also makes it more likely that a critical report on Boris may lead to a similar suspension.
I have family in Rutherglen. Will be making sure they all vote to recall their MP.
All family dynamics are different, but if some distant or even close relly started telling me how to vote, they'd get told to ram it.
They can vote for whoever they want to.
But I’ll be letting them know that there’s a recall petition active against the incumbent, for the reason that she had a positive covid test in London, and then spent five hours on the train bringing it back to Glasgow.
Ah, so we've moved on from 'Will be making sure they all vote to recall their MP'.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
It (the first lockdown) was not needed but it is understandable why the government should have instigated it. The others were of course not needed either.
Remember the poll which said (was it?) 13% of people never wanted nightclubs to reopen.
That is what this government did to the country.
My memory of that poll was that the anti clubbers were a larger group (20+%?). Plenty with that vibe right here on PB too…
Google says 26%.
Yup. Absolutely shocking, although my feeling at the time was that very many PBers would have been with thar 26%. What an illiberal, authoritarian, terrifyingly judgemental population we became during that horrible time.
Makes me shudder just thinking about it.
I concur we had an illiberal and authoritarian *government* that emphasised tough policing of COVID restrictions (contrary to SAGE advice). We needed a more liberal and social democratic government that would have provided better support for those self-isolating (recommended by SAGE) and more investment in infrastructure like air filters, practical measures that reduce the need for community-wide restrictions. More carrot, less stick.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
Did we really need a lockdown?
I think it's obvious that we needed people to reduce social contact to prevent spread of the virus, but did that require the force of law?
Good pandemic response should avoid any need for lockdowns. Lockdowns are last resorts. So, one can imagine a counter-factual where we didn’t need a lockdown. But that would have required a much better response in Jan-Mar, better test & trace measures, etc. If you don’t want lockdowns, you invest in public health.
I have a strong suspicion that the state of health required so that some people think lockdowns are unnecessary would always be just around the corner. Everyone has an agenda.
Look at the fuss and bother over disposable vapes. They interviewed someone on R4 from the BMA or somesuch who wanted them banned primarily because of their environmental impact. Oh yes and the health implications are as yet unproven but the environmental impact was very bad indeed.
Everyone has an agenda.
Yes, exactly. Many people see no issue at all in extrapolating from 'I don't like activity X' to 'Activity X should be banned'.
Personally, I dislike vaping largely because vape shops are ugly. But I wouldn't ban vaping for this. (Though I'd be in favour of some sort of public intervention to make our high streets more attractive.)
Exciting as dams and Sir Keir's regurgitated curry are, other news.
I'd hazard a guess that winning by only 7pts would be disappointing for the prospects of 'We need change from the pro Brexit, anti immigration, pro NHS privatisation Tories' Labour.
What is the Union Divvie bar for a successful Labour by-election?
A cynic might suggest it would be five points better than the result...
I yield to your expertise in this area, so feel free to posit a stellar/good/mediocre/shite result for Labour in the context of an oncoming GE. I think 7pts ahead of the SNP would be mediocre.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
It (the first lockdown) was not needed but it is understandable why the government should have instigated it. The others were of course not needed either.
Remember the poll which said (was it?) 13% of people never wanted nightclubs to reopen.
That is what this government did to the country.
While I agree lockdowns were a mistake, I wouldn't use that poll as evidence as to why.
If you'd taken a poll in 2019, before we ever heard of Covid, as to whether nightclubs should be open, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a significant element who would have said closed even then.
Regrettably for an otherwise liberal nation there is a large element of curtain twitchers and busy bodies who want to stick themselves into other people's lives as a matter of course. Covid just gave them free reign and right to come out from behind the curtains.
Exciting as dams and Sir Keir's regurgitated curry are, other news.
I'd hazard a guess that winning by only 7pts would be disappointing for the prospects of 'We need change from the pro Brexit, anti immigration, pro NHS privatisation Tories' Labour.
Nonetheless pretty awful result for Yousaf to lose his first electoral test as SNP leader to Labour
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
Did we really need a lockdown?
I think it's obvious that we needed people to reduce social contact to prevent spread of the virus, but did that require the force of law?
Good pandemic response should avoid any need for lockdowns. Lockdowns are last resorts. So, one can imagine a counter-factual where we didn’t need a lockdown. But that would have required a much better response in Jan-Mar, better test & trace measures, etc. If you don’t want lockdowns, you invest in public health.
Completely agree that, ideally, public health fundamentals like test, trace and isolate should prevent the need for blanket reductions in social contact, but even when that approach fails, is a lockdown necessary?
We are a democracy. If the Prime Minister tells the nation that reducing social contact to a bare minimum is required to avoid a pandemic disaster, then surely we'd expect most citizens to voluntarily abide by such public health advice. We're not China. We don't need to pass laws on who can or cannot enter a private home.
Japan kept levels much lower throughout, but then took this route with voluntary advice rather than legal lockdowns. Some have suggested that the Japanese population is more compliant, while the UK population is full of people who would have gone around saying, “I don’t have to follow any of this! Huff!” However, I’m sure we don’t know any people like that, say on PB.com.
Exciting as dams and Sir Keir's regurgitated curry are, other news.
I'd hazard a guess that winning by only 7pts would be disappointing for the prospects of 'We need change from the pro Brexit, anti immigration, pro NHS privatisation Tories' Labour.
I'd hazard a guess that Labour winning by one vote would be a disappointment for the SNP, and the SNP winning by 1 vote would be a disappointment for Labour.
I see the usual suspects are mithering on about Keir’s curry again.
We need another name for them, though, instead of “PB Tories”. In most cases they profess *not* to be outright Tories, merely concerned citizens who care very deeply for some reason about the contents of Keir’s rubbish bin while ignoring the burning slag heap commonly referred to as the Conservative Party.
Nah, he broke the rules. Of course the rules were fucking stupid but he broke them. If someone working in widgets in Slough had done the same thing and plod had noticed (of course they made it their business to notice such things during the pandemic) then they would have been done for it.
BuT the EmAiLs!
I couldn't give a fuck about the emails - not seen them. He was having a(n after work) party during lockdown when it was illegal to do so.
The police, who are empowered to decide and saw the evidence, decided otherwise. You, a random partisan online commenter, think otherwise. However can we choose between these two opinions?
Yes because the police have proven beyond any reasonable doubt what pillars of probity and independent free thinking they are.
How to choose between someone who exercises sound judgement and someone who believes anything the police tell them. How indeed.
If you meet this person who exercises sound judgement and is a model of independent free thinking, could you ask them to post to PB.com?
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
However we need oil and gas for the foreseeable future. Simply refusing new licenses to extract our own and reduce reliance on other nations is crazy. Richard Tyndall has posted quite a bit about it here.
Oil is used for far more than just "fossil fuels" and produces a wide range of products we simply do not have an easy option to replace.
Labour taking money from a donor who has a vested financial interest in onshore wind generation and then, by a happy coincidence, announcing their policy on North Sea Licenses is interesting.
Well perhaps the best option would be to stop burning the stuff and instead use it only for essential purposes. Then we wouldn't need so much of it.
Which we're doing.
We're decarbonising already. Its already working. Technology and investment is changing rapidly for the better already.
In 2012 we had most of our electricity coming from coal. A decade later coal is all but eliminated and renewables provide far more.
Electric cars, which can run off clean fuels, are already starting to replace oil based cars.
It takes time to make the transition, but its already happening, and its already working.
If you want to look where its not working, look abroad. But zealots don't care about what's working or not, they just want to be seen and to pretend that we are responsible and need to stop developing because that suits their agendas that have nothing to do with the environment.
If you were serious about wanting to lower global emissions you'd want to look at stopping or reducing imports from dirty more polluting countries. But our zealots want to do the polar opposite.
I'm not sure which zealots you mean, but I'm all in favour of heavily taxing all imports of fossil fuels as well as reducing our own production. It's not a case of either/or; we have to reduce both our production and importation of fossil fuels.
Why not deal with demand and let production deal with itself. That way your hydrocarbon needs are met through local production which is the most environmentally friendly way of doing it, you maintain energy security and you don't impact your balance of payments.
There are literally no sane reasons for reducing local production except in response to reductions in consumption. Anything else just causes more of the very thing you are trying to reduce.
Russia blowing up the dam is going to have severe consequences. The act equates to the use of weapons of mass destruction under international law. ------ "Dams like the Dnipro dam in Nova Kahkovka are protected by the laws of war and the Geneva convention. Destroying it would be considered a weapon of mass destruction and an indiscriminate war crime. Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
'Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.'
Talking about Desert Storm, the Americans thought about blowing up the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers if the Iraqis used WMD in Desert Storm.
Colin Powell said they stopped when they realised it would cause more damage than nuking Baghdad and realised they would likely face war crimes charges.
It is interesting that an event we celebrate in film and memorial and which just had its 80th anniversary marked by a flypast of all the WW2 airfields in Lincolnshire would now be considered a war crime.
The problem with war crimes is they are only work if those who committed them are defeated and can be put on trial, as with the Nazis in WW2 or Serbs in Bosnia or ousted tyrants in Africa or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
It doesn't matter how many war crimes Putin or indeed the US are alleged to have committed, they are not going to voluntarily hand themselves over to war crimes tribunals and nor are security forces going to be able to arrest them in Moscow or DC
Also makes it more likely that a critical report on Boris may lead to a similar suspension.
I have family in Rutherglen. Will be making sure they all vote to recall their MP.
All family dynamics are different, but if some distant or even close relly started telling me how to vote, they'd get told to ram it.
They can vote for whoever they want to.
But I’ll be letting them know that there’s a recall petition active against the incumbent, for the reason that she had a positive covid test in London, and then spent five hours on the train bringing it back to Glasgow.
Ah, so we've moved on from 'Will be making sure they all vote to recall their MP'.
They can vote for who ever they want in the by-election.
A recall petition requires everyone to know it’s happening, and if I can tell them from 3,500 miles away that it’s happening…
Surely the SNP are in favour of, and will be campaigning for, the recall of their former MP?
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.
Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.
I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.
And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.
How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.
Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao
Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.
We are slowing.
If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.
Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.
'We' is the world in general. Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset. https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.
But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.
OK Sandpit, explain what you mean. Is this a criticism of any particular country? "China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/ So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
Did we really need a lockdown?
I think it's obvious that we needed people to reduce social contact to prevent spread of the virus, but did that require the force of law?
Good pandemic response should avoid any need for lockdowns. Lockdowns are last resorts. So, one can imagine a counter-factual where we didn’t need a lockdown. But that would have required a much better response in Jan-Mar, better test & trace measures, etc. If you don’t want lockdowns, you invest in public health.
Completely agree that, ideally, public health fundamentals like test, trace and isolate should prevent the need for blanket reductions in social contact, but even when that approach fails, is a lockdown necessary?
We are a democracy. If the Prime Minister tells the nation that reducing social contact to a bare minimum is required to avoid a pandemic disaster, then surely we'd expect most citizens to voluntarily abide by such public health advice. We're not China. We don't need to pass laws on who can or cannot enter a private home.
Japan kept levels much lower throughout, but then took this route with voluntary advice rather than legal lockdowns. Some have suggested that the Japanese population is more compliant, while the UK population is full of people who would have gone around saying, “I don’t have to follow any of this! Huff!” However, I’m sure we don’t know any people like that, say on PB.com.
Japan also is not in Europe where the virus became much more endemic throughout the continent, for which we have many people coming and going on a daily basis for food etc
We should have stuck with voluntary advice, even if people decide they don't want to follow it. Never again should we take away people's liberties, if you can't convince them to follow the guidance, then you don't convince them, let people who want to hide away do so.
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.
Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.
I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.
And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.
How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.
Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao
Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.
We are slowing.
If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.
Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.
'We' is the world in general. Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset. https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.
But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.
OK Sandpit, explain what you mean. Is this a criticism of any particular country? "China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/ So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?
Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.
Just discovered I have a Chat GPT account. Not passing the Turing test yet:
Cookie: Where do you weigh a whale?
Chat GPT: You weigh a whale at a specialized facility or location equipped to handle the immense size and weight of these marine mammals. These facilities are typically marine research centers, aquariums, or other institutions that work with whales and have the necessary infrastructure and equipment.
To weigh a whale, the most common method is to use a large-scale or platform scale. The scale is typically placed on a solid foundation, such as a reinforced floor, capable of supporting the weight of the whale. The whale is carefully guided onto the scale, either by using a specialized lift or by coaxing it onto the weighing platform through training techniques.
It's important to note that weighing a whale is a complex and challenging task due to their size, weight, and the need to ensure the safety and well-being of the animal throughout the process. Therefore, it is typically carried out by experienced professionals who follow strict protocols to minimize stress and potential harm to the whale.
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
However we need oil and gas for the foreseeable future. Simply refusing new licenses to extract our own and reduce reliance on other nations is crazy. Richard Tyndall has posted quite a bit about it here.
Oil is used for far more than just "fossil fuels" and produces a wide range of products we simply do not have an easy option to replace.
Labour taking money from a donor who has a vested financial interest in onshore wind generation and then, by a happy coincidence, announcing their policy on North Sea Licenses is interesting.
Well perhaps the best option would be to stop burning the stuff and instead use it only for essential purposes. Then we wouldn't need so much of it.
Which we're doing.
We're decarbonising already. Its already working. Technology and investment is changing rapidly for the better already.
In 2012 we had most of our electricity coming from coal. A decade later coal is all but eliminated and renewables provide far more.
Electric cars, which can run off clean fuels, are already starting to replace oil based cars.
It takes time to make the transition, but its already happening, and its already working.
If you want to look where its not working, look abroad. But zealots don't care about what's working or not, they just want to be seen and to pretend that we are responsible and need to stop developing because that suits their agendas that have nothing to do with the environment.
If you were serious about wanting to lower global emissions you'd want to look at stopping or reducing imports from dirty more polluting countries. But our zealots want to do the polar opposite.
I'm not sure which zealots you mean, but I'm all in favour of heavily taxing all imports of fossil fuels as well as reducing our own production. It's not a case of either/or; we have to reduce both our production and importation of fossil fuels.
Why not deal with demand and let production deal with itself. That way your hydrocarbon needs are met through local production which is the most environmentally friendly way of doing it, you maintain energy security and you don't impact your balance of payments.
There are literally no sane reasons for reducing local production except in response to reductions in consumption. Anything else just causes more of the very thing you are trying to reduce.
Precisely. This is a demand-based problem that needs demand-based solutions.
Getting people to switch from petrol/diesel vehicles to electric ones will significantly reduce the amount of fossil fuels burnt in this country. Switching our petrol/diesel from North Sea to Middle Eastern, or vice-versa, does not change the amount burnt whatsoever.
If you want to be serious about the problem, you need serious solutions. Like how do we electrify heating/transportation etc and make it work with clean electricity. What you don't need is clowns blocking domestic extraction of the fuel we rely upon to live our lives in the interim so that we import from shady characters from shady parts of the world instead.
Exciting as dams and Sir Keir's regurgitated curry are, other news.
I'd hazard a guess that winning by only 7pts would be disappointing for the prospects of 'We need change from the pro Brexit, anti immigration, pro NHS privatisation Tories' Labour.
What is the Union Divvie bar for a successful Labour by-election?
A cynic might suggest it would be five points better than the result...
I yield to your expertise in this area, so feel free to posit a stellar/good/mediocre/shite result for Labour in the context of an oncoming GE. I think 7pts ahead of the SNP would be mediocre.
If that's your honest take, it suggests that Scottish voters are as tired of the SNP as the UK as a whole is of the Tories.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
Did we really need a lockdown?
I think it's obvious that we needed people to reduce social contact to prevent spread of the virus, but did that require the force of law?
Good pandemic response should avoid any need for lockdowns. Lockdowns are last resorts. So, one can imagine a counter-factual where we didn’t need a lockdown. But that would have required a much better response in Jan-Mar, better test & trace measures, etc. If you don’t want lockdowns, you invest in public health.
I have a strong suspicion that the state of health required so that some people think lockdowns are unnecessary would always be just around the corner. Everyone has an agenda.
Look at the fuss and bother over disposable vapes. They interviewed someone on R4 from the BMA or somesuch who wanted them banned primarily because of their environmental impact. Oh yes and the health implications are as yet unproven but the environmental impact was very bad indeed.
Everyone has an agenda.
Yes, people who work on pandemic preparedness have an agenda. That agenda is stopping pandemics! (Preceded by apologies and followed by any other business, and date of next meeting.)
Of course - gawd bless them (and you, I believe?).
However, it ain't so simple as saying "Me guv? I just want to stop the next pandemic." We have finite resources and a sliding scale of cost/benefit. I could stop every single death or injury from road traffic accidents tomorrow. If I was allowed to ban people driving.
If I was a health professional I would want a health service that was able to cope, effortlessly, with any and every possibility. All tail events (and the pandemic was one such) included.
That would require a ridiculous and unrealistic level of spending.
So given that this is not going to happen compromises must be made and in this instance, one compromise was to allow "normal" (although of course far from normal) life to go on, or at least allow life to go on with no laws to regulate who you could invite to dinner (or have a curry with) and accept the increase in deaths that might have occurred as a result.
Just discovered I have a Chat GPT account. Not passing the Turing test yet:
Cookie: Where do you weigh a whale?
Chat GPT: You weigh a whale at a specialized facility or location equipped to handle the immense size and weight of these marine mammals. These facilities are typically marine research centers, aquariums, or other institutions that work with whales and have the necessary infrastructure and equipment.
To weigh a whale, the most common method is to use a large-scale or platform scale. The scale is typically placed on a solid foundation, such as a reinforced floor, capable of supporting the weight of the whale. The whale is carefully guided onto the scale, either by using a specialized lift or by coaxing it onto the weighing platform through training techniques.
It's important to note that weighing a whale is a complex and challenging task due to their size, weight, and the need to ensure the safety and well-being of the animal throughout the process. Therefore, it is typically carried out by experienced professionals who follow strict protocols to minimize stress and potential harm to the whale.
What's wrong with that answer ?
I think it's the one most of the world would give (If they had the knowledge). Is there a parochial joke you're making chatgpt is missing ?
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
Did we really need a lockdown?
I think it's obvious that we needed people to reduce social contact to prevent spread of the virus, but did that require the force of law?
Good pandemic response should avoid any need for lockdowns. Lockdowns are last resorts. So, one can imagine a counter-factual where we didn’t need a lockdown. But that would have required a much better response in Jan-Mar, better test & trace measures, etc. If you don’t want lockdowns, you invest in public health.
Completely agree that, ideally, public health fundamentals like test, trace and isolate should prevent the need for blanket reductions in social contact, but even when that approach fails, is a lockdown necessary?
We are a democracy. If the Prime Minister tells the nation that reducing social contact to a bare minimum is required to avoid a pandemic disaster, then surely we'd expect most citizens to voluntarily abide by such public health advice. We're not China. We don't need to pass laws on who can or cannot enter a private home.
Japan kept levels much lower throughout, but then took this route with voluntary advice rather than legal lockdowns. Some have suggested that the Japanese population is more compliant, while the UK population is full of people who would have gone around saying, “I don’t have to follow any of this! Huff!” However, I’m sure we don’t know any people like that, say on PB.com.
Japan also is not in Europe where the virus became much more endemic throughout the continent, for which we have many people coming and going on a daily basis for food etc
We should have stuck with voluntary advice, even if people decide they don't want to follow it. Never again should we take away people's liberties, if you can't convince them to follow the guidance, then you don't convince them, let people who want to hide away do so.
Bart, you’re better than this absolutist libertarian garbage. Society involves balances and we give up our liberties for benefits all the time. You have to pay tax, you can’t drive without a license, you can’t walk down Downing Street any more unless invited, you can’t make your own MDMA, you can’t keep a notifiable disease secret, you can’t sell fags to kids, you can’t smoke in so many places, you can’t open carry a gun that you just bought from a supermarket, you can’t walk the streets naked. Sure, we should be very cautious about taking away liberties and weigh up the pros and cons, but you just look like one of those Sovereign Citizen nutters if you proclaim absolutes.
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.
Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.
I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.
And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.
How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.
Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao
Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.
We are slowing.
If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.
Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.
'We' is the world in general. Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset. https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.
But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.
OK Sandpit, explain what you mean. Is this a criticism of any particular country? "China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/ So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?
Because
1. Looking for new fossil fuels in no way prevents us from also doing far more investment in renewables, it is not an either or and the monies raised by taxes on fossil fuels helps pay for more renewables 2, Hydrocarbon sources are not just about fossil fuels. Your electric cars won't get very far without those lubricants and coolants you need to make them run and of course you won't even have the electric cars without hydrocarbon based plastics. Nor a whole host of other things. And when that gives you a headacheyou won't have asprin either.
And meanwhile all you are going to be doing is importing those fossil fuels from other parts of the world with far poorer environmental controls and using far more energy to get them here.
Deal with demand and leave supply alone to deal with its own issues.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
It (the first lockdown) was not needed but it is understandable why the government should have instigated it. The others were of course not needed either.
Remember the poll which said (was it?) 13% of people never wanted nightclubs to reopen.
That is what this government did to the country.
While I agree lockdowns were a mistake, I wouldn't use that poll as evidence as to why.
If you'd taken a poll in 2019, before we ever heard of Covid, as to whether nightclubs should be open, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a significant element who would have said closed even then.
Regrettably for an otherwise liberal nation there is a large element of curtain twitchers and busy bodies who want to stick themselves into other people's lives as a matter of course. Covid just gave them free reign and right to come out from behind the curtains.
Oh I agree and (if you will forgive the godwin) it is analagous to Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party. Whether he was personally an anti-semite or not he nevertheless emboldened those in the Labour Party who unambiguously were anti-semites.
If you go around putting into the public domain that you can stop nightclubs from opening by closing them then you embolden those who want them closed permanently.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
The amounts directly recovered from crimes in the form of fines is always dwarfed by the policing and legal costs.
But imagine it the other way round, living in a country with no police and no legal system...
The problem comes when political point-scoring overwhelmes the police budget to go after more serious crimes.
I agree completerly, but that is still not a question of how much the investigation cost, but rather should the investigation taken place or perhaps when it should have been called off.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
Did we really need a lockdown?
I think it's obvious that we needed people to reduce social contact to prevent spread of the virus, but did that require the force of law?
Good pandemic response should avoid any need for lockdowns. Lockdowns are last resorts. So, one can imagine a counter-factual where we didn’t need a lockdown. But that would have required a much better response in Jan-Mar, better test & trace measures, etc. If you don’t want lockdowns, you invest in public health.
I have a strong suspicion that the state of health required so that some people think lockdowns are unnecessary would always be just around the corner. Everyone has an agenda.
Look at the fuss and bother over disposable vapes. They interviewed someone on R4 from the BMA or somesuch who wanted them banned primarily because of their environmental impact. Oh yes and the health implications are as yet unproven but the environmental impact was very bad indeed.
Everyone has an agenda.
Yes, people who work on pandemic preparedness have an agenda. That agenda is stopping pandemics! (Preceded by apologies and followed by any other business, and date of next meeting.)
Of course - gawd bless them (and you, I believe?).
However, it ain't so simple as saying "Me guv? I just want to stop the next pandemic." We have finite resources and a sliding scale of cost/benefit. I could stop every single death or injury from road traffic accidents tomorrow. If I was allowed to ban people driving.
If I was a health professional I would want a health service that was able to cope, effortlessly, with any and every possibility. All tail events (and the pandemic was one such) included.
That would require a ridiculous and unrealistic level of spending.
So given that this is not going to happen compromises must be made and in this instance, one compromise was to allow "normal" (although of course far from normal) life to go on, or at least allow life to go on with no laws to regulate who you could invite to dinner (or have a curry with) and accept the increase in deaths that might have occurred as a result.
Of course we need to have a system — like a democratically elected government — to decide how to raise and apportion public funds. Like, duh.
Badenoch defends her decision to change the Retained EU Law Bill in the face of Qs from big Brexiteer David Jones
“I'm not an arsonist, I'm a Conservative. I don’t think a bonfire of regulations is what we wanted. What we wanted was reform & removal of the things we didn't need"
Just discovered I have a Chat GPT account. Not passing the Turing test yet:
Cookie: Where do you weigh a whale?
Chat GPT: You weigh a whale at a specialized facility or location equipped to handle the immense size and weight of these marine mammals. These facilities are typically marine research centers, aquariums, or other institutions that work with whales and have the necessary infrastructure and equipment.
To weigh a whale, the most common method is to use a large-scale or platform scale. The scale is typically placed on a solid foundation, such as a reinforced floor, capable of supporting the weight of the whale. The whale is carefully guided onto the scale, either by using a specialized lift or by coaxing it onto the weighing platform through training techniques.
It's important to note that weighing a whale is a complex and challenging task due to their size, weight, and the need to ensure the safety and well-being of the animal throughout the process. Therefore, it is typically carried out by experienced professionals who follow strict protocols to minimize stress and potential harm to the whale.
What's wrong with that answer ?
I think it's the one most of the world would give (If they had the knowledge). Is there a parochial joke you're making chatgpt is missing ?
Exciting as dams and Sir Keir's regurgitated curry are, other news.
I'd hazard a guess that winning by only 7pts would be disappointing for the prospects of 'We need change from the pro Brexit, anti immigration, pro NHS privatisation Tories' Labour.
Nonetheless pretty awful result for Yousaf to lose his first electoral test as SNP leader to Labour
Something he will need to get used to. I suspect Labour will win by 15 -20%.
Russia blowing up the dam is going to have severe consequences. The act equates to the use of weapons of mass destruction under international law. ------ "Dams like the Dnipro dam in Nova Kahkovka are protected by the laws of war and the Geneva convention. Destroying it would be considered a weapon of mass destruction and an indiscriminate war crime. Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
'Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.'
Talking about Desert Storm, the Americans thought about blowing up the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers if the Iraqis used WMD in Desert Storm.
Colin Powell said they stopped when they realised it would cause more damage than nuking Baghdad and realised they would likely face war crimes charges.
It is interesting that an event we celebrate in film and memorial and which just had its 80th anniversary marked by a flypast of all the WW2 airfields in Lincolnshire would now be considered a war crime.
The problem with war crimes is they are only work if those who committed them are defeated and can be put on trial, as with the Nazis in WW2 or Serbs in Bosnia or ousted tyrants in Africa or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
It doesn't matter how many war crimes Putin or indeed the US are alleged to have committed, they are not going to voluntarily hand themselves over to war crimes tribunals and nor are security forces going to be able to arrest them in Moscow or DC
But that should not impact whether or not things are considered a war crime. We all know that sometime speople get away with doing terrible things. That doesn't mean we should not still insist that these things ARE terrible and that we will hold people to account where we get the opportunity.
My original comment was just an observation on how the world has changed but we still perceive some things as being acceptable long after they are now considered criminal.
Exciting as dams and Sir Keir's regurgitated curry are, other news.
I'd hazard a guess that winning by only 7pts would be disappointing for the prospects of 'We need change from the pro Brexit, anti immigration, pro NHS privatisation Tories' Labour.
What is the Union Divvie bar for a successful Labour by-election?
A cynic might suggest it would be five points better than the result...
I yield to your expertise in this area, so feel free to posit a stellar/good/mediocre/shite result for Labour in the context of an oncoming GE. I think 7pts ahead of the SNP would be mediocre.
If that's your honest take, it suggests that Scottish voters are as tired of the SNP as the UK as a whole is of the Tories.
That last 3 UK by elections (where the Tories lost to the LDs) had swings of between 25-34, so 'as tired' is doing a fair bit of work there.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
Did we really need a lockdown?
I think it's obvious that we needed people to reduce social contact to prevent spread of the virus, but did that require the force of law?
Good pandemic response should avoid any need for lockdowns. Lockdowns are last resorts. So, one can imagine a counter-factual where we didn’t need a lockdown. But that would have required a much better response in Jan-Mar, better test & trace measures, etc. If you don’t want lockdowns, you invest in public health.
I have a strong suspicion that the state of health required so that some people think lockdowns are unnecessary would always be just around the corner. Everyone has an agenda.
Look at the fuss and bother over disposable vapes. They interviewed someone on R4 from the BMA or somesuch who wanted them banned primarily because of their environmental impact. Oh yes and the health implications are as yet unproven but the environmental impact was very bad indeed.
Everyone has an agenda.
Yes, people who work on pandemic preparedness have an agenda. That agenda is stopping pandemics! (Preceded by apologies and followed by any other business, and date of next meeting.)
Of course - gawd bless them (and you, I believe?).
However, it ain't so simple as saying "Me guv? I just want to stop the next pandemic." We have finite resources and a sliding scale of cost/benefit. I could stop every single death or injury from road traffic accidents tomorrow. If I was allowed to ban people driving.
If I was a health professional I would want a health service that was able to cope, effortlessly, with any and every possibility. All tail events (and the pandemic was one such) included.
That would require a ridiculous and unrealistic level of spending.
So given that this is not going to happen compromises must be made and in this instance, one compromise was to allow "normal" (although of course far from normal) life to go on, or at least allow life to go on with no laws to regulate who you could invite to dinner (or have a curry with) and accept the increase in deaths that might have occurred as a result.
Of course we need to have a system — like a democratically elected government — to decide how to raise and apportion public funds. Like, duh.
Yep absolutely. I disagreed with their policy, just like I disagree with the Labour Party policy to nationalise Tescos (I think that's what they want to do).
The difference is that we are talking about considerable restrictions of liberties and, IIRC, a cancelled election, wasn't there? This takes the danger of such policies into a different domain and beyond just "oh it's democratic decision made by a democratically-elected government".
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.
Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.
I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.
And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.
How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.
Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao
Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.
We are slowing.
If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.
Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.
'We' is the world in general. Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset. https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.
But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.
OK Sandpit, explain what you mean. Is this a criticism of any particular country? "China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/ So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?
Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.
China is still building coal power plants.
Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot. Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so? China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.
Russia blowing up the dam is going to have severe consequences. The act equates to the use of weapons of mass destruction under international law. ------ "Dams like the Dnipro dam in Nova Kahkovka are protected by the laws of war and the Geneva convention. Destroying it would be considered a weapon of mass destruction and an indiscriminate war crime. Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
'Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.'
Talking about Desert Storm, the Americans thought about blowing up the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers if the Iraqis used WMD in Desert Storm.
Colin Powell said they stopped when they realised it would cause more damage than nuking Baghdad and realised they would likely face war crimes charges.
It is interesting that an event we celebrate in film and memorial and which just had its 80th anniversary marked by a flypast of all the WW2 airfields in Lincolnshire would now be considered a war crime.
The problem with war crimes is they are only work if those who committed them are defeated and can be put on trial, as with the Nazis in WW2 or Serbs in Bosnia or ousted tyrants in Africa or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
It doesn't matter how many war crimes Putin or indeed the US are alleged to have committed, they are not going to voluntarily hand themselves over to war crimes tribunals and nor are security forces going to be able to arrest them in Moscow or DC
But that should not impact whether or not things are considered a war crime. We all know that sometime speople get away with doing terrible things. That doesn't mean we should not still insist that these things ARE terrible and that we will hold people to account where we get the opportunity.
My original comment was just an observation on how the world has changed but we still perceive some things as being acceptable long after they are now considered criminal.
Maybe but unless laws can be enforced by law enforcement and the courts they in practical terms irrelevant
Russia blowing up the dam is going to have severe consequences. The act equates to the use of weapons of mass destruction under international law. ------ "Dams like the Dnipro dam in Nova Kahkovka are protected by the laws of war and the Geneva convention. Destroying it would be considered a weapon of mass destruction and an indiscriminate war crime. Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
'Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.'
Talking about Desert Storm, the Americans thought about blowing up the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers if the Iraqis used WMD in Desert Storm.
Colin Powell said they stopped when they realised it would cause more damage than nuking Baghdad and realised they would likely face war crimes charges.
It is interesting that an event we celebrate in film and memorial and which just had its 80th anniversary marked by a flypast of all the WW2 airfields in Lincolnshire would now be considered a war crime.
The problem with war crimes is they are only work if those who committed them are defeated and can be put on trial, as with the Nazis in WW2 or Serbs in Bosnia or ousted tyrants in Africa or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
It doesn't matter how many war crimes Putin or indeed the US are alleged to have committed, they are not going to voluntarily hand themselves over to war crimes tribunals and nor are security forces going to be able to arrest them in Moscow or DC
But that should not impact whether or not things are considered a war crime. We all know that sometime speople get away with doing terrible things. That doesn't mean we should not still insist that these things ARE terrible and that we will hold people to account where we get the opportunity.
My original comment was just an observation on how the world has changed but we still perceive some things as being acceptable long after they are now considered criminal.
It's an interesting one.
Perhaps it's because there's thankfully been progress, but most people can see it in the context of the times? It was, for the time, total war, but there were standards. Even then, Britain, the US and Germany held back from using chemical weapons (not the Japanese, though...). The Red Cross was generally respected.
Badenoch defends her decision to change the Retained EU Law Bill in the face of Qs from big Brexiteer David Jones
“I'm not an arsonist, I'm a Conservative. I don’t think a bonfire of regulations is what we wanted. What we wanted was reform & removal of the things we didn't need"
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.
Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.
I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.
And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.
How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.
Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao
Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.
We are slowing.
If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.
Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.
'We' is the world in general. Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset. https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.
But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.
OK Sandpit, explain what you mean. Is this a criticism of any particular country? "China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/ So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?
Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.
China is still building coal power plants.
Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot. Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so? China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.
That is exacty what Starmer is suggesting. That is the whole point of this discussion.
Just discovered I have a Chat GPT account. Not passing the Turing test yet:
Cookie: Where do you weigh a whale?
Chat GPT: You weigh a whale at a specialized facility or location equipped to handle the immense size and weight of these marine mammals. These facilities are typically marine research centers, aquariums, or other institutions that work with whales and have the necessary infrastructure and equipment.
To weigh a whale, the most common method is to use a large-scale or platform scale. The scale is typically placed on a solid foundation, such as a reinforced floor, capable of supporting the weight of the whale. The whale is carefully guided onto the scale, either by using a specialized lift or by coaxing it onto the weighing platform through training techniques.
It's important to note that weighing a whale is a complex and challenging task due to their size, weight, and the need to ensure the safety and well-being of the animal throughout the process. Therefore, it is typically carried out by experienced professionals who follow strict protocols to minimize stress and potential harm to the whale.
What's wrong with that answer ?
I think it's the one most of the world would give (If they had the knowledge). Is there a parochial joke you're making chatgpt is missing ?
A whale-weigh station!
Yes, exactly! Though on reflection, I think ChatGPT's answer is funnier. I particularly enjoy 'coaxing it onto the weighing platform through training techniques'.
On further reflection, I can already think of a better 'straight' answer, which is that you weigh you whale AND the water it is in in the tank, then weigh just the tank and the water, and work out the difference. There is some complexity about how you make sure you know how much water there was in the tank, but this should be doable in a closed system.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
Did we really need a lockdown?
I think it's obvious that we needed people to reduce social contact to prevent spread of the virus, but did that require the force of law?
Good pandemic response should avoid any need for lockdowns. Lockdowns are last resorts. So, one can imagine a counter-factual where we didn’t need a lockdown. But that would have required a much better response in Jan-Mar, better test & trace measures, etc. If you don’t want lockdowns, you invest in public health.
I have a strong suspicion that the state of health required so that some people think lockdowns are unnecessary would always be just around the corner. Everyone has an agenda.
Look at the fuss and bother over disposable vapes. They interviewed someone on R4 from the BMA or somesuch who wanted them banned primarily because of their environmental impact. Oh yes and the health implications are as yet unproven but the environmental impact was very bad indeed.
Everyone has an agenda.
Yes, people who work on pandemic preparedness have an agenda. That agenda is stopping pandemics! (Preceded by apologies and followed by any other business, and date of next meeting.)
Of course - gawd bless them (and you, I believe?).
However, it ain't so simple as saying "Me guv? I just want to stop the next pandemic." We have finite resources and a sliding scale of cost/benefit. I could stop every single death or injury from road traffic accidents tomorrow. If I was allowed to ban people driving.
If I was a health professional I would want a health service that was able to cope, effortlessly, with any and every possibility. All tail events (and the pandemic was one such) included.
That would require a ridiculous and unrealistic level of spending.
So given that this is not going to happen compromises must be made and in this instance, one compromise was to allow "normal" (although of course far from normal) life to go on, or at least allow life to go on with no laws to regulate who you could invite to dinner (or have a curry with) and accept the increase in deaths that might have occurred as a result.
Of course we need to have a system — like a democratically elected government — to decide how to raise and apportion public funds. Like, duh.
Yep absolutely. I disagreed with their policy, just like I disagree with the Labour Party policy to nationalise Tescos (I think that's what they want to do).
The difference is that we are talking about considerable restrictions of liberties and, IIRC, a cancelled election, wasn't there? This takes the danger of such policies into a different domain and beyond just "oh it's democratic decision made by a democratically-elected government".
Some local elections were postponed. The Government didn’t cancel any elections affecting itself.
Russia blowing up the dam is going to have severe consequences. The act equates to the use of weapons of mass destruction under international law. ------ "Dams like the Dnipro dam in Nova Kahkovka are protected by the laws of war and the Geneva convention. Destroying it would be considered a weapon of mass destruction and an indiscriminate war crime. Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
'Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.'
Talking about Desert Storm, the Americans thought about blowing up the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers if the Iraqis used WMD in Desert Storm.
Colin Powell said they stopped when they realised it would cause more damage than nuking Baghdad and realised they would likely face war crimes charges.
It is interesting that an event we celebrate in film and memorial and which just had its 80th anniversary marked by a flypast of all the WW2 airfields in Lincolnshire would now be considered a war crime.
The problem with war crimes is they are only work if those who committed them are defeated and can be put on trial, as with the Nazis in WW2 or Serbs in Bosnia or ousted tyrants in Africa or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
It doesn't matter how many war crimes Putin or indeed the US are alleged to have committed, they are not going to voluntarily hand themselves over to war crimes tribunals and nor are security forces going to be able to arrest them in Moscow or DC
But that should not impact whether or not things are considered a war crime. We all know that sometime speople get away with doing terrible things. That doesn't mean we should not still insist that these things ARE terrible and that we will hold people to account where we get the opportunity.
My original comment was just an observation on how the world has changed but we still perceive some things as being acceptable long after they are now considered criminal.
It's an interesting one.
Perhaps it's because there's thankfully been progress, but most people can see it in the context of the times? It was, for the time, total war, but there were standards. Even then, Britain, the US and Germany held back from using chemical weapons (not the Japanese, though...). The Red Cross was generally respected.
As I remember the RAF Chaplain at the time of Dresden used an argument that given that war is a complete negation of civilised behaviour, the only reasonable response from civilised people was to use all means at their disposal to bring it to an end as quickly as possible.
I have to say I don't necessarily hold with that view and think it can and is used to condone things which are completely beyond the pale. I only mention it as it seemed apposite to your comment.
Exciting as dams and Sir Keir's regurgitated curry are, other news.
I'd hazard a guess that winning by only 7pts would be disappointing for the prospects of 'We need change from the pro Brexit, anti immigration, pro NHS privatisation Tories' Labour.
What is the Union Divvie bar for a successful Labour by-election?
A cynic might suggest it would be five points better than the result...
I yield to your expertise in this area, so feel free to posit a stellar/good/mediocre/shite result for Labour in the context of an oncoming GE. I think 7pts ahead of the SNP would be mediocre.
It's been more than six months since I left Scotland. I feel my expertise fading. I'd be interested in your thoughts (and the reasoning behind them).
Just discovered I have a Chat GPT account. Not passing the Turing test yet:
Cookie: Where do you weigh a whale?
Chat GPT: You weigh a whale at a specialized facility or location equipped to handle the immense size and weight of these marine mammals. These facilities are typically marine research centers, aquariums, or other institutions that work with whales and have the necessary infrastructure and equipment.
To weigh a whale, the most common method is to use a large-scale or platform scale. The scale is typically placed on a solid foundation, such as a reinforced floor, capable of supporting the weight of the whale. The whale is carefully guided onto the scale, either by using a specialized lift or by coaxing it onto the weighing platform through training techniques.
It's important to note that weighing a whale is a complex and challenging task due to their size, weight, and the need to ensure the safety and well-being of the animal throughout the process. Therefore, it is typically carried out by experienced professionals who follow strict protocols to minimize stress and potential harm to the whale.
What's wrong with that answer ?
I think it's the one most of the world would give (If they had the knowledge). Is there a parochial joke you're making chatgpt is missing ?
It isn't right though AIUI. You *might* be able to do that for a small whale; for large whales, or whales not in captivity, it's a no-hoper. I bet the process would also kill large whales.
"or by coaxing it onto the weighing platform through training techniques." seems particularly odd. They've taken something for another animal and altered it.
Russia blowing up the dam is going to have severe consequences. The act equates to the use of weapons of mass destruction under international law. ------ "Dams like the Dnipro dam in Nova Kahkovka are protected by the laws of war and the Geneva convention. Destroying it would be considered a weapon of mass destruction and an indiscriminate war crime. Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
'Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.'
Talking about Desert Storm, the Americans thought about blowing up the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers if the Iraqis used WMD in Desert Storm.
Colin Powell said they stopped when they realised it would cause more damage than nuking Baghdad and realised they would likely face war crimes charges.
It is interesting that an event we celebrate in film and memorial and which just had its 80th anniversary marked by a flypast of all the WW2 airfields in Lincolnshire would now be considered a war crime.
The problem with war crimes is they are only work if those who committed them are defeated and can be put on trial, as with the Nazis in WW2 or Serbs in Bosnia or ousted tyrants in Africa or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
It doesn't matter how many war crimes Putin or indeed the US are alleged to have committed, they are not going to voluntarily hand themselves over to war crimes tribunals and nor are security forces going to be able to arrest them in Moscow or DC
But that should not impact whether or not things are considered a war crime. We all know that sometime speople get away with doing terrible things. That doesn't mean we should not still insist that these things ARE terrible and that we will hold people to account where we get the opportunity.
My original comment was just an observation on how the world has changed but we still perceive some things as being acceptable long after they are now considered criminal.
Maybe but unless laws can be enforced by law enforcement and the courts they in practical terms irrelevant
Not at all. Just because some people get away with it doesn't mean that everyone should be allowed to. Lots of people get way with fraud sadly. That doesn't mean we should not have laws against it.
Cookie (still enjoying himself): How can you tell there is an elephant in bed with you?
ChatGPT: If you were to wake up and suspect that there is an elephant in bed with you, you would likely notice several unmistakable signs:
Size and Space: You would likely feel an extreme lack of space in the bed, as an elephant would take up a significant portion of it. The bed would feel crowded and cramped.
Weight and Pressure: The immense weight of an elephant would cause the mattress to sink or compress significantly, leading to an unusual sensation of pressure and possibly discomfort.
Movement and Vibrations: An elephant's size and weight would likely result in noticeable movements and vibrations. You might feel the bed shaking or shifting as the elephant adjusts its position.
Sounds and Noises: Elephants are large animals, and their presence in a bed would likely produce audible sounds. You might hear heavy breathing, rustling, or even low rumbling sounds coming from the elephant.
Visual Confirmation: If you manage to look or glance in the direction of the supposed elephant, you would likely see the unmistakable sight of a massive creature beside or partially on the bed.
However, it's important to note that an elephant in bed with you is an unlikely scenario in reality, and it's more likely to be a humorous or imaginative concept.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
The amounts directly recovered from crimes in the form of fines is always dwarfed by the policing and legal costs.
But imagine it the other way round, living in a country with no police and no legal system...
The problem comes when political point-scoring overwhelmes the police budget to go after more serious crimes.
I agree completerly, but that is still not a question of how much the investigation cost, but rather should the investigation taken place or perhaps when it should have been called off.
If the question is, should the police in London and Durham spent millions of pounds investigating offences, for which the penalty was an £80 ticket - then of course the answer should have been no.
Especially given the context of car thefts and house burglaries getting no followup at all, bar a crime number for those with insurance.
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.
Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.
I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.
And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.
How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.
Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao
Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.
We are slowing.
If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.
Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.
'We' is the world in general. Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset. https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.
But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.
OK Sandpit, explain what you mean. Is this a criticism of any particular country? "China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/ So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?
Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.
China is still building coal power plants.
Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot. Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so? China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.
Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.
I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.
And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.
How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.
Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao
Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.
We are slowing.
If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.
Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.
'We' is the world in general. Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset. https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.
But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.
OK Sandpit, explain what you mean. Is this a criticism of any particular country? "China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/ So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?
Because
1. Looking for new fossil fuels in no way prevents us from also doing far more investment in renewables, it is not an either or and the monies raised by taxes on fossil fuels helps pay for more renewables 2, Hydrocarbon sources are not just about fossil fuels. Your electric cars won't get very far without those lubricants and coolants you need to make them run and of course you won't even have the electric cars without hydrocarbon based plastics. Nor a whole host of other things. And when that gives you a headacheyou won't have asprin either.
And meanwhile all you are going to be doing is importing those fossil fuels from other parts of the world with far poorer environmental controls and using far more energy to get them here.
Deal with demand and leave supply alone to deal with its own issues.
The public demand heating and transport, we don't demand that gas, coal or oil to be used to provide that. We will need vastly less fossil fuels to produce aspirin, plastic and lubricants than for petrol, diesel to use in transport and for power stations. Very few people are suggesting closing down existing sources of fossil fuels in this country before they become economically irrelevant, but spending time and money searching for and developing new coal mines and oil wells rather than building more renewables is a bad idea.
Russia blowing up the dam is going to have severe consequences. The act equates to the use of weapons of mass destruction under international law. ------ "Dams like the Dnipro dam in Nova Kahkovka are protected by the laws of war and the Geneva convention. Destroying it would be considered a weapon of mass destruction and an indiscriminate war crime. Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
'Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.'
Talking about Desert Storm, the Americans thought about blowing up the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers if the Iraqis used WMD in Desert Storm.
Colin Powell said they stopped when they realised it would cause more damage than nuking Baghdad and realised they would likely face war crimes charges.
It is interesting that an event we celebrate in film and memorial and which just had its 80th anniversary marked by a flypast of all the WW2 airfields in Lincolnshire would now be considered a war crime.
The problem with war crimes is they are only work if those who committed them are defeated and can be put on trial, as with the Nazis in WW2 or Serbs in Bosnia or ousted tyrants in Africa or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
It doesn't matter how many war crimes Putin or indeed the US are alleged to have committed, they are not going to voluntarily hand themselves over to war crimes tribunals and nor are security forces going to be able to arrest them in Moscow or DC
But that should not impact whether or not things are considered a war crime. We all know that sometime speople get away with doing terrible things. That doesn't mean we should not still insist that these things ARE terrible and that we will hold people to account where we get the opportunity.
My original comment was just an observation on how the world has changed but we still perceive some things as being acceptable long after they are now considered criminal.
It's an interesting one.
Perhaps it's because there's thankfully been progress, but most people can see it in the context of the times? It was, for the time, total war, but there were standards. Even then, Britain, the US and Germany held back from using chemical weapons (not the Japanese, though...). The Red Cross was generally respected.
As I remember the RAF Chaplain at the time of Dresden used an argument that given that war is a complete negation of civilised behaviour, the only reasonable response from civilised people was to use all means at their disposal to bring it to an end as quickly as possible.
I have to say I don't necessarily hold with that view and think it can and is used to condone things which are completely beyond the pale. I only mention it as it seemed apposite to your comment.
If you're in a war of survival, you also don't aim to do the absolute minimum possible. You do the maximum you can do within the restrictions of resources, politics, morality and the law.
Something that has bearing on Ukraine currently. (Russia thinks it does, but if Russia withdrew from Ukraine tomorrow (i.e. totally lost), Russia would survive.
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.
Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.
I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.
And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.
How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.
Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao
Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.
We are slowing.
If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.
Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.
'We' is the world in general. Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset. https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.
But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.
OK Sandpit, explain what you mean. Is this a criticism of any particular country? "China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/ So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?
Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.
China is still building coal power plants.
Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot. Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so? China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.
Security experts are to turn on an old phone belonging to Boris Johnson to try to extract WhatsApp messages revealing discussions with government figures at the start of the pandemic.
The phone was switched off in 2021 because of fears that it had been hacked with Israeli spy software. The advice was that it should never be turned back on.
But the Covid inquiry revealed today that it had reached a deal with the Cabinet Office to hand the phone to the “appropriate personnel in government for its contents to be downloaded”.
Just discovered I have a Chat GPT account. Not passing the Turing test yet:
Cookie: Where do you weigh a whale?
Chat GPT: You weigh a whale at a specialized facility or location equipped to handle the immense size and weight of these marine mammals. These facilities are typically marine research centers, aquariums, or other institutions that work with whales and have the necessary infrastructure and equipment.
To weigh a whale, the most common method is to use a large-scale or platform scale. The scale is typically placed on a solid foundation, such as a reinforced floor, capable of supporting the weight of the whale. The whale is carefully guided onto the scale, either by using a specialized lift or by coaxing it onto the weighing platform through training techniques.
It's important to note that weighing a whale is a complex and challenging task due to their size, weight, and the need to ensure the safety and well-being of the animal throughout the process. Therefore, it is typically carried out by experienced professionals who follow strict protocols to minimize stress and potential harm to the whale.
What's wrong with that answer ?
I think it's the one most of the world would give (If they had the knowledge). Is there a parochial joke you're making chatgpt is missing ?
You can tell it's an answer generated by a computer.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.
Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
If the police did not check the Labour WhatsApp’s because of the pressure Starmer put on them, it means the investigation was botched, and this needs to be reopened before the GE to investigate Starmer and Labour more thoroughly. It can’t be properly done without investigating what they said on WhatsApp “we’ll have a beer and curry after and put it on parliamentary expenses” for example.
So campaigning was legal at the time (cf. Labour and Tory leadership both seen eating and drinking with aides).
Ah but the police may have not seen WhatsApp messages related to this legal thing. aaaaaAAAAHHHHHaaaaa. But why would the police want to investigate Starmer's WhatsApp messages - in relation to an offence he hasn't committed?
There is desperate, then there is just funny. This is the latter.
If the WhatsApp says something different to the retrospective line Labour publicly took, that’s a huge smoking gun that blows Labour out the water. Without police and public seeing those WhatsApp’s and knowing it tally with Labours public answers, it’s like there hasn’t even been a proper investigation yet.
If, if, if... The police carried out an investigation. No-one's presented evidence that their investigation was substantially defective.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a WhatsApp smoking gun. "After campaigning for the day, let's be really naughty and stay for a curry and a couple of beers".
Again, as their "naughty" plan was legal, why would the police care? A criminal conspiracy to not break the law is not criminal.
AS it was this was a total and utter waste of police resources and Durham Council Taxpayers money investigating this non event for purely partisan political purposes.
See also partygate. I mean how much was reaped in the fines vs how much spent investigating?
On the other hand, if it deters politicians from ordering damaging and counter-productive future lockdowns for fear of being shown up as hypocrites, it will have been worth every penny
Until we have a pandemic which needs lockdowns. And then people would be screaming about why we didn't lock down...
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
Did we really need a lockdown?
I think it's obvious that we needed people to reduce social contact to prevent spread of the virus, but did that require the force of law?
Good pandemic response should avoid any need for lockdowns. Lockdowns are last resorts. So, one can imagine a counter-factual where we didn’t need a lockdown. But that would have required a much better response in Jan-Mar, better test & trace measures, etc. If you don’t want lockdowns, you invest in public health.
I have a strong suspicion that the state of health required so that some people think lockdowns are unnecessary would always be just around the corner. Everyone has an agenda.
Look at the fuss and bother over disposable vapes. They interviewed someone on R4 from the BMA or somesuch who wanted them banned primarily because of their environmental impact. Oh yes and the health implications are as yet unproven but the environmental impact was very bad indeed.
Everyone has an agenda.
Yes, people who work on pandemic preparedness have an agenda. That agenda is stopping pandemics! (Preceded by apologies and followed by any other business, and date of next meeting.)
Of course - gawd bless them (and you, I believe?).
However, it ain't so simple as saying "Me guv? I just want to stop the next pandemic." We have finite resources and a sliding scale of cost/benefit. I could stop every single death or injury from road traffic accidents tomorrow. If I was allowed to ban people driving.
If I was a health professional I would want a health service that was able to cope, effortlessly, with any and every possibility. All tail events (and the pandemic was one such) included.
That would require a ridiculous and unrealistic level of spending.
So given that this is not going to happen compromises must be made and in this instance, one compromise was to allow "normal" (although of course far from normal) life to go on, or at least allow life to go on with no laws to regulate who you could invite to dinner (or have a curry with) and accept the increase in deaths that might have occurred as a result.
Of course we need to have a system — like a democratically elected government — to decide how to raise and apportion public funds. Like, duh.
Yep absolutely. I disagreed with their policy, just like I disagree with the Labour Party policy to nationalise Tescos (I think that's what they want to do).
The difference is that we are talking about considerable restrictions of liberties and, IIRC, a cancelled election, wasn't there? This takes the danger of such policies into a different domain and beyond just "oh it's democratic decision made by a democratically-elected government".
Some local elections were postponed. The Government didn’t cancel any elections affecting itself.
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.
Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.
I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.
And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.
How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.
Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao
Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.
We are slowing.
If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.
Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.
'We' is the world in general. Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset. https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.
But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.
OK Sandpit, explain what you mean. Is this a criticism of any particular country? "China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/ So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?
Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.
China is still building coal power plants.
Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot. Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so? China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.
That is exacty what Starmer is suggesting. That is the whole point of this discussion.
Please provide reference where he says that UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it.
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.
Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.
I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.
And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.
How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.
Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao
Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.
We are slowing.
If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.
Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.
'We' is the world in general. Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset. https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.
But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.
OK Sandpit, explain what you mean. Is this a criticism of any particular country? "China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/ So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?
Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.
China is still building coal power plants.
Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot. Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so? China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.
Russia blowing up the dam is going to have severe consequences. The act equates to the use of weapons of mass destruction under international law. ------ "Dams like the Dnipro dam in Nova Kahkovka are protected by the laws of war and the Geneva convention. Destroying it would be considered a weapon of mass destruction and an indiscriminate war crime. Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
'Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.'
Talking about Desert Storm, the Americans thought about blowing up the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers if the Iraqis used WMD in Desert Storm.
Colin Powell said they stopped when they realised it would cause more damage than nuking Baghdad and realised they would likely face war crimes charges.
It is interesting that an event we celebrate in film and memorial and which just had its 80th anniversary marked by a flypast of all the WW2 airfields in Lincolnshire would now be considered a war crime.
The problem with war crimes is they are only work if those who committed them are defeated and can be put on trial, as with the Nazis in WW2 or Serbs in Bosnia or ousted tyrants in Africa or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
It doesn't matter how many war crimes Putin or indeed the US are alleged to have committed, they are not going to voluntarily hand themselves over to war crimes tribunals and nor are security forces going to be able to arrest them in Moscow or DC
But that should not impact whether or not things are considered a war crime. We all know that sometime speople get away with doing terrible things. That doesn't mean we should not still insist that these things ARE terrible and that we will hold people to account where we get the opportunity.
My original comment was just an observation on how the world has changed but we still perceive some things as being acceptable long after they are now considered criminal.
It's an interesting one.
Perhaps it's because there's thankfully been progress, but most people can see it in the context of the times? It was, for the time, total war, but there were standards. Even then, Britain, the US and Germany held back from using chemical weapons (not the Japanese, though...). The Red Cross was generally respected.
As I remember the RAF Chaplain at the time of Dresden used an argument that given that war is a complete negation of civilised behaviour, the only reasonable response from civilised people was to use all means at their disposal to bring it to an end as quickly as possible.
I have to say I don't necessarily hold with that view and think it can and is used to condone things which are completely beyond the pale. I only mention it as it seemed apposite to your comment.
If you're in a war of survival, you also don't aim to do the absolute minimum possible. You do the maximum you can do within the restrictions of resources, politics, morality and the law.
Something that has bearing on Ukraine currently. (Russia thinks it does, but if Russia withdrew from Ukraine tomorrow (i.e. totally lost), Russia would survive.
Although Ukraine has generally made quite an effort to avoid incidental damage, understandably since their country is the battlefield.
Comments
(For the record, my view is that the first lockdown in March 2020 was definitely needed. The second probably was.)
Remember the poll which said (was it?) 13% of people never wanted nightclubs to reopen.
That is what this government did to the country.
We need another name for them, though, instead of “PB Tories”. In most cases they profess *not* to be outright Tories, merely concerned citizens who care very deeply for some reason about the contents of Keir’s rubbish bin while ignoring the burning slag heap commonly referred to as the Conservative Party.
Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
I think it's obvious that we needed people to reduce social contact to prevent spread of the virus, but did that require the force of law?
Lamentably, however, the principal opposition called only for more lockdowns.
I was criticising Johnson on here before it was popular, and giving reasons why I thought he'd be a terrible PM. I didn't say much about Truss, as I was too busy scoffing the popcorn. And I've said that the Conservative Party is tired, out of ideas, and rife with navel-gazing and infighting. I've called for an early General Election, and said I won't vote for the Conservatives. I've also said I can't see another good leader with any chance of getting the party's leadership once they're in opposition.
But that doesn't mean I cannot criticise the Labour Party, or its leader, does it?
But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.
But imagine it the other way round, living in a country with no police and no legal system...
MPs vote to ban Margaret Ferrier from Commons for 30 days
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65702252
Also makes it more likely that a critical report on Boris may lead to a similar suspension.
I think if that poll showed anything, it was the weakness of polling on hypothetical questions. I mean, I'm sure there was at least 20% of people who wouldn't care if nightclubs reopened - but I suspect the position that they should never be allowed to be reopen was possibly sincere but very weakly held.
I'd hazard a guess that winning by only 7pts would be disappointing for the prospects of 'We need change from the pro Brexit, anti immigration, pro NHS privatisation Tories' Labour.
Look at the fuss and bother over disposable vapes. They interviewed someone on R4 from the BMA or somesuch who wanted them banned primarily because of their environmental impact. Oh yes and the health implications are as yet unproven but the environmental impact was very bad indeed.
Everyone has an agenda.
Makes me shudder just thinking about it.
We are a democracy. If the Prime Minister tells the nation that reducing social contact to a bare minimum is required to avoid a pandemic disaster, then surely we'd expect most citizens to voluntarily abide by such public health advice. We're not China. We don't need to pass laws on who can or cannot enter a private home.
How to choose between someone who exercises sound judgement and someone who believes anything the police tell them. How indeed.
A cynic might suggest it would be five points better than the result...
The Conservatives who backed her included former ministers David Davis and Jacob Rees-Mogg, and party grandees Sir Bill Cash and Sir Edward Leigh."
Lol
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-65787391
But I’ll be letting them know that there’s a recall petition active against the incumbent, for the reason that she had a positive covid test in London, and then spent five hours on the train bringing it back to Glasgow.
Personally, I dislike vaping largely because vape shops are ugly. But I wouldn't ban vaping for this. (Though I'd be in favour of some sort of public intervention to make our high streets more attractive.)
If you'd taken a poll in 2019, before we ever heard of Covid, as to whether nightclubs should be open, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a significant element who would have said closed even then.
Regrettably for an otherwise liberal nation there is a large element of curtain twitchers and busy bodies who want to stick themselves into other people's lives as a matter of course. Covid just gave them free reign and right to come out from behind the curtains.
Such is the nature of elections.
There are literally no sane reasons for reducing local production except in response to reductions in consumption. Anything else just causes more of the very thing you are trying to reduce.
It doesn't matter how many war crimes Putin or indeed the US are alleged to have committed, they are not going to voluntarily hand themselves over to war crimes tribunals and nor are security forces going to be able to arrest them in Moscow or DC
A recall petition requires everyone to know it’s happening, and if I can tell them from 3,500 miles away that it’s happening…
Surely the SNP are in favour of, and will be campaigning for, the recall of their former MP?
Is this a criticism of any particular country?
"China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.
China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/
So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?
We should have stuck with voluntary advice, even if people decide they don't want to follow it. Never again should we take away people's liberties, if you can't convince them to follow the guidance, then you don't convince them, let people who want to hide away do so.
China is still building coal power plants.
Cookie: Where do you weigh a whale?
Chat GPT: You weigh a whale at a specialized facility or location equipped to handle the immense size and weight of these marine mammals. These facilities are typically marine research centers, aquariums, or other institutions that work with whales and have the necessary infrastructure and equipment.
To weigh a whale, the most common method is to use a large-scale or platform scale. The scale is typically placed on a solid foundation, such as a reinforced floor, capable of supporting the weight of the whale. The whale is carefully guided onto the scale, either by using a specialized lift or by coaxing it onto the weighing platform through training techniques.
It's important to note that weighing a whale is a complex and challenging task due to their size, weight, and the need to ensure the safety and well-being of the animal throughout the process. Therefore, it is typically carried out by experienced professionals who follow strict protocols to minimize stress and potential harm to the whale.
Getting people to switch from petrol/diesel vehicles to electric ones will significantly reduce the amount of fossil fuels burnt in this country. Switching our petrol/diesel from North Sea to Middle Eastern, or vice-versa, does not change the amount burnt whatsoever.
If you want to be serious about the problem, you need serious solutions. Like how do we electrify heating/transportation etc and make it work with clean electricity. What you don't need is clowns blocking domestic extraction of the fuel we rely upon to live our lives in the interim so that we import from shady characters from shady parts of the world instead.
However, it ain't so simple as saying "Me guv? I just want to stop the next pandemic." We have finite resources and a sliding scale of cost/benefit. I could stop every single death or injury from road traffic accidents tomorrow. If I was allowed to ban people driving.
If I was a health professional I would want a health service that was able to cope, effortlessly, with any and every possibility. All tail events (and the pandemic was one such) included.
That would require a ridiculous and unrealistic level of spending.
So given that this is not going to happen compromises must be made and in this instance, one compromise was to allow "normal" (although of course far from normal) life to go on, or at least allow life to go on with no laws to regulate who you could invite to dinner (or have a curry with) and accept the increase in deaths that might have occurred as a result.
I think it's the one most of the world would give (If they had the knowledge). Is there a parochial joke you're making chatgpt is missing ?
1. Looking for new fossil fuels in no way prevents us from also doing far more investment in renewables, it is not an either or and the monies raised by taxes on fossil fuels helps pay for more renewables
2, Hydrocarbon sources are not just about fossil fuels. Your electric cars won't get very far without those lubricants and coolants you need to make them run and of course you won't even have the electric cars without hydrocarbon based plastics. Nor a whole host of other things. And when that gives you a headacheyou won't have asprin either.
And meanwhile all you are going to be doing is importing those fossil fuels from other parts of the world with far poorer environmental controls and using far more energy to get them here.
Deal with demand and leave supply alone to deal with its own issues.
If you go around putting into the public domain that you can stop nightclubs from opening by closing them then you embolden those who want them closed permanently.
“I'm not an arsonist, I'm a Conservative. I don’t think a bonfire of regulations is what we wanted. What we wanted was reform & removal of the things we didn't need"
https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1666031189050769414
My original comment was just an observation on how the world has changed but we still perceive some things as being acceptable long after they are now considered criminal.
The difference is that we are talking about considerable restrictions of liberties and, IIRC, a cancelled election, wasn't there? This takes the danger of such policies into a different domain and beyond just "oh it's democratic decision made by a democratically-elected government".
@BritainElects
25m
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 43% (-4)
CON: 29% (-1)
LDEM: 13% (+4)
via @DeltapollUK 02 - 05 Jun"
Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so?
China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.
Perhaps it's because there's thankfully been progress, but most people can see it in the context of the times? It was, for the time, total war, but there were standards. Even then, Britain, the US and Germany held back from using chemical weapons (not the Japanese, though...). The Red Cross was generally respected.
Though on reflection, I think ChatGPT's answer is funnier. I particularly enjoy 'coaxing it onto the weighing platform through training techniques'.
On further reflection, I can already think of a better 'straight' answer, which is that you weigh you whale AND the water it is in in the tank, then weigh just the tank and the water, and work out the difference. There is some complexity about how you make sure you know how much water there was in the tank, but this should be doable in a closed system.
I have to say I don't necessarily hold with that view and think it can and is used to condone things which are completely beyond the pale. I only mention it as it seemed apposite to your comment.
"or by coaxing it onto the weighing platform through training techniques." seems particularly odd. They've taken something for another animal and altered it.
Here's a way it can be done.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49893849
Or my proposal: put a load of explosives in it, then see the damage done to nearby cars...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6CLumsir34
ChatGPT: If you were to wake up and suspect that there is an elephant in bed with you, you would likely notice several unmistakable signs:
Size and Space: You would likely feel an extreme lack of space in the bed, as an elephant would take up a significant portion of it. The bed would feel crowded and cramped.
Weight and Pressure: The immense weight of an elephant would cause the mattress to sink or compress significantly, leading to an unusual sensation of pressure and possibly discomfort.
Movement and Vibrations: An elephant's size and weight would likely result in noticeable movements and vibrations. You might feel the bed shaking or shifting as the elephant adjusts its position.
Sounds and Noises: Elephants are large animals, and their presence in a bed would likely produce audible sounds. You might hear heavy breathing, rustling, or even low rumbling sounds coming from the elephant.
Visual Confirmation: If you manage to look or glance in the direction of the supposed elephant, you would likely see the unmistakable sight of a massive creature beside or partially on the bed.
However, it's important to note that an elephant in bed with you is an unlikely scenario in reality, and it's more likely to be a humorous or imaginative concept.
Especially given the context of car thefts and house burglaries getting no followup at all, bar a crime number for those with insurance.
We will need vastly less fossil fuels to produce aspirin, plastic and lubricants than for petrol, diesel to use in transport and for power stations. Very few people are suggesting closing down existing sources of fossil fuels in this country before they become economically irrelevant, but spending time and money searching for and developing new coal mines and oil wells rather than building more renewables is a bad idea.
Something that has bearing on Ukraine currently. (Russia thinks it does, but if Russia withdrew from Ukraine tomorrow (i.e. totally lost), Russia would survive.
The phone was switched off in 2021 because of fears that it had been hacked with Israeli spy software. The advice was that it should never be turned back on.
But the Covid inquiry revealed today that it had reached a deal with the Cabinet Office to hand the phone to the “appropriate personnel in government for its contents to be downloaded”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-inquiry-baroness-hallett-boris-johnson-whatsapp-messages-tbncbgq5g
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/04/starmer-labour-new-north-sea-oil-gas-ban