I have avoided this topic entirely because I find it so toxic and this place is not my kind of natural demographic (I’m on here for betting reasons, so no offence meant). And I certainly do not want to light a touch paper.
However, I did encounter something I found very strange c. 18 months ago.
I was moving house and selling a few things which included a fairly new John Lewis mattress. I advertised on FB marketplace and the first person to respond clinched the sale. She sent a driver around with the cash to collect it.
I thought little more about it until 24 hours later she messaged me to say she wasn’t satisfied with the quality and wanted her money back. I was a bit taken aback (JLP aren’t usually rubbish) but I told her that was fine. Return the mattress and I’d refund her. Her reply was this:
’I am a Nigerian nurse who has come over here to work in your Health Service in response to your Government advertising in my country for people to come and help out in Britain. I have no money and I am doing you all a service so please give me the mattress for free.'
I was, and still am, on several levels astonished.
You obviously told her to get f@#ked?
I did.
For the benefit of Topping the startling part is obviously what she said. It’s sad that I have to spell it out, but for starters it wasn’t just her attitude: that somehow she had come to this country in order to help us out and was doing us a favour, that should mean freebies.
It was that the Government were recruiting Nigerian workers to make up for the (obvious) fact that others had left.
Where was this mentioned by the Leave campaign????
It was one personal encounter with what has clearly for many people become a serious issue: net migration.
And I’m a left-leaning person who loves multi-culturalism here. But there’s clearly a problem. We have totally fed Farage and us centrists ignore that at our grave peril.
You do realise we’ve been poaching labour for the NHS from commonwealth countries overseas since well before Brexit? They speak English, often have equivalent training, and will take the wages we offer. We recruit them because it takes a while to recruit and train them locally, so taking someone mid-career is an easy sugar fix. Zero link to Brexit.
Indeed, it’s been going on for decades.
Recruiting from overseas works in the short term to free up capacity, but long term we need more training places in the UK, and not have students in subjects like nursing getting into debt for a ‘degree’.
The BMA have until very recently been utterly opposed to more medical school places, preferring to encourage scarcity of doctors.
One of my pet ideas is to open a “British Hospital” somewhere like Mumbai or Manila, staffed at the top end by retired British doctors and managers doing it for a couple of years, and existing primarily to train up thousands of locals with UK-recognised qualifications that lead to visas. It also provides a service to the local population, and avoids taking mid-career professionals out of the country.
Medical school snootiness is a real issue. Doctors don’t need to be straight A students at A-level. They need good memories and a set of less academic competencies. However medical schools only favour the former.
One of my partner's daughter's best friends is...
Gold standard PB anecdote source.
My partner's daughter lives with us, and her friend is a regular visitor to our house. It's not that tenuous.
She is a first hand example of someone who gained a place at medical school despite having less than stellar A level grades. This is evidence that you don't actually need top grades to get into medical school in the UK, contradicting the claim made by the poster to whom I was responding.
Sigh….
I’m sure you’re telling the truth and your friend’s daughter found a way, but shall we inject some facts:
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
@TOPPING your complacency about migration as an issue in this election is breathtaking
I very rarely agree with @Leon and he doesn’t help his cause, but this IS a big big issue for a lot of people
@TOPPING has status anxiety on this issue. Caring about immigration is by definition something done by the lower orders, he sees himself as posh but also affects not to care about poshness (did you know his nephews go to Eton? - he told us this, not that it matters of course, as he himself added)
Ergo, he is way out on the left on immigration, so we don't mistake him for a petit bourgeois UKIPPPER
Not quite.
I genuinely don't give a stuff about immigration. I do give a stuff about resources/infrastructure (hospitals, schools, etc) but any shortfall there is down to government's inaction or inability to build more schools, hospitals, etc.
What about a theoretical or actual 100m people coming to the UK - would that be a good thing or likely? Is the key question and one where you perhaps should have directed your enquiry to me rather than airing your own well-known insecurities about status.
And the answer is I'm not sure. As it stands, we don't have millions of people queuing up to come here and I do want some control of the borders in terms of the actual numbers.
I suppose my answer would be that the government/the parties should set out a growth plan together with the level of immigration required to support that plan. We then could vote for the one which suited us best.
Final answer.
"We don't have millions of people queuing up to come here"? Really? Are you saying that that's it, immigration is now going to slow from a flood to a trickle - we've used up the demand? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's not a view I've heard expressed before.
If you look at the immigration numbers the vast, vast majority is legal. There were 45,000 channel boat crossings in 2022 (11k ytd).
Are there millions waiting to come? If we advertised everywhere in every country a free UK visa? Perhaps. Probably. But today, we are seeing substantially only those we want to come. It's up to us. We don't have free borders (anymore).
Others will have noted it but two interesting local byelections
The Con hold in Eltham was passable in normal times - a very good result in the current maelstrom. The Lab hold in Clydebank was a rather poor result for the SNP.
There is a months-long trend here of Con LE results far-outperforming their national picture (at least against Lab and/or in Scotland). Local BEs were a better indicator than polls in the run-up to 1992. I don't suggest anything on that scale but this should be a note of caution if going all-in on a high Lab seats total or a Ref UK break-through.
We saw in May some "local" Conservatives running well ahead of the national party polling but it didn't stop big defeats in places like Runnymede and Havant.
Suggesting that somehow because the Conservatives hold a seat in SE London all the 20% poll ratings are wrong is just drivel, pure and simple. It's desperate straw clutching.
Susan Hall and Andy Street both polled much better than the national poll numbers suggested - they both still lost. In the case of Hall, her numbers didn't reflect down to the GLA constituencies.
There will be popular local Conservatives who can stand against the tide in local elections and by elections - no one is denying it and indeed their ability to disassociate themselves from the national trend works to their advantage (it happens in all parties by the way) but to extrapolate that nationally is just plain wrong.
One thing I see the Tories have leapt on from last night's forecast was Rayner not ruling out CGT on house sales, including family homes. That's something Labour need to squash very quickly. CGT on family home sales would be an utterly catastrophic thing to let into a GE campaign discourse. It would crater them.
Labour will have to raise taxes since they wont cut spending. Set aside the Con Accusation of £2094 which is really £3000. But £7.5 billion of declared increases wont raise £7.5 billion.
Oh I agree, but this is one they need to shut down or they'll take a big hit for.
Two examples
If North Sea oil is due to drop in price by 25% by year end as the IEA say then those windfall taxes have a bit of a hole. Some companies might actually be making a loss.
Likewise the VAT on school fees is a complete unknown with more down side that upside.
So the money will have to come from somewhere else.
All of the numbers are forecasts based on the information and facts we have now. Projections. So of course they will be wrong - most snapshots are.
The next government is almost certain to announce how Shocked and Outraged it is to discover the truth. Just how bad the nation's finances have been left, and how the Tories were covering it up. Sadly that means that x now needs to happen because of the Tories.
Basically take the Osborne script from 2010 and replace "Labour" with "Tories" and that is what we will get.
Of course, and that's when Starmer starts to take a hit. The surprising thing is his tax increases cant even pass the first sniff test.
He has been given a free pass because the Tory attacks have been so absurd and incredulous. Audiences laughing at them in debates. Ministers skewered on Sky News with that graphic. Even The Spectator repeating endlessly that on the Tory "Labour £2k tax" methodology the Tory increase would be £3k.
People are talking about tax alright. How much they are paying under the Tories and how little they are getting back for it. And how the Tories are lying to their face about it. Starmer doesn't need to defend or explain as the Tories have draw fire away from them.
Imagine the alternate strategy. Instead of Bad Penny ranting until told to shut up on the debate stage about fantasy Labour taxes, we have measured Penny. Sorry that taxes had to go up so much - Ukraine and Covid, Ukraine and Covid - but they do now have a plan to start reducing the pain. But Labour think you should keep paying more.
People might be paying attention. But as it is, nobody is.
Greens at 9% and SNP 3% in Matt Goodwin's latest poll. Data tables now up on his website.
He has a massive gender split in party support. C-L-R of 14-47-12 among women and 23-33-21 among men.
As I've commented before, Reform is a blokeish party with little appeal to most women. I think, fortuitously, that puts a bit of a cap on the level they can reach.
The gender gap is smaller with other pollsters, but it still exists. Given that women line significantly longer than men, and so make up a disproportionately large fraction of the retired population, it's surprising to have such a gender split combined with the age split.
In YouGov, for example, Labour have a 21pp lead among women, and a 17pp lead among men, but the Tories do have a marginally higher share among women (18 v 17). The difference is explained by the larger Labour gender split (39 v 34) with Reform splitting the other way (14 v 24).
This is a potential challenge for any possible future New Farage Tory Party.
What gobsmacked me is that Sunak didn't know the net migration numbers in the Sky debate. Not a clue what they were. This is the numbers guy. She had to tell him what they were.
This is why the Right is on the march in Europe and now here. Centrist middle class Metropole fucking complacency.
The *far* right, not the right. They should own it.
Well I know people who I would never have called Far Right who are voting Reform
And the No.1 issue they all mention? Immigration. And they are on top of their facts about net migration numbers too.
@TOPPING says it doesn't matter to him but FUCK ME, it really does to these people and they are changing this election.
Do you think Brexit happened because of the Far Right? No. They whipped up enough of the right, and some on the left, to the cause. The rest is history.
Being complacent like the tories have been on this especially Sunak is now part of their undoing. He has bleated on about boat crossings but he has presided over the greatest level of net migration this country has EVER seen.
NET MIGRATION:
745,000 in 2022 685,000 in 2023
RECORD LEVELS
FFS this IS an issue like it or not. Bang out of order to take a pop at hethener when she was illustrating why this is a voter issue RIGHT NOW
Last time I tell an anecdote on here. It was an eye-opener for me and it was indicative of something which is clearly a significant driver in this election.
@Leon what you call ‘pub banter’ is often very off-putting, especially for women. This place can be a bear pit. And the pile-ons aren’t cool.
What distinguishes pb.com, or did on Mike Smithson’s watch, was people listening to those from various different perspectives. Sadly that is getting eroded and, with it, any attraction for those outside the ever-narrowing demographic.
xx
Someone is trying to scam a mattress off you and this is indicative of a significant driver in this election?
I think Heathener was trying to drop in a mischievous bomb before disappearing for a while, where everyone would either be attacking “nigerian nurses” or attacking those who were attacking Nigerian nurses. Unfortunately the bomb went off before H could run away and she’s the only victim.
The only takeaway from the story is that there are poor Nigerian nurses operating at the other end of the scale to Nigerian Princes
I thought it was an interesting story. I took no more from it than that
It may not have been the best example of migration but it's correct that this is a BIG factor in this election. We may not like that it is but it is.
Same goes in Europe.
If you don't want to feed the kind of BS that Leon posts then at least engage with the reasons behind it. Otherwise @Heathener is right that we are fuelling it through centrist complacency.
Exactly the same thing happened in the run up to Brexit. Fucking sneering complacency from the Metropoles. They couldn't see what was happening on their watch under their very noses.
Smell the coffee.
If immigration is such a big issue and we have had record immigration for the past several years aren't we the idiots that can't do anything about it. We are about to have a Lab landslide current predictions are for upwards of a 250-seat majority and I can promise you they won't be all that hard on immigration. Ergo, the country really doesn't care enough about immigration to vote someone in who's going to do anything about it.
Of course you're right that a sizeable minority cares a lot, but as it stands not enough people do for anything much to happen as a result.
Do you ever go to a restaurant, the hospital or need care, eat vegetables.... that is where all those people are....they are working. The economy would tank without immigration. I work in research, my research group of 35 has two brits.... both of us are only half brits - and both the half brits did our PhDs in other countries.... the talent is inherently international. The british population is ageing, and lacks education (often priced out of education due to child and youth poverty)
I'll say it again: Farage's Net Zero Migration plan is completely barking. Worse than anything Corbyn ever came up with. Farage would burn the country down if it made him king of the ash heap.
You don't like the idea of replacing emigrating pensioners with immigrating workers?
I’m about to take the stage and debate Penny Mordaunt, Nigel Farage and co.
Today of all days, when we released our manifesto, I'm proud to be able to take the stage and represent our party to deliver our message of change. The truth is, everyone I'm up against tonight wants to see Labour falter. But I’m well up for it and honestly, I’m determined to do you proud.
I’m going to give it my all, but it would mean a lot to me to know that you are standing with me. Please will you donate using my link below at:
Last time I tell an anecdote on here. It was an eye-opener for me and it was indicative of something which is clearly a significant driver in this election.
@Leon what you call ‘pub banter’ is often very off-putting, especially for women. This place can be a bear pit. And the pile-ons aren’t cool.
What distinguishes pb.com, or did on Mike Smithson’s watch, was people listening to those from various different perspectives. Sadly that is getting eroded and, with it, any attraction for those outside the ever-narrowing demographic.
xx
Someone is trying to scam a mattress off you and this is indicative of a significant driver in this election?
I think Heathener was trying to drop in a mischievous bomb before disappearing for a while, where everyone would either be attacking “nigerian nurses” or attacking those who were attacking Nigerian nurses. Unfortunately the bomb went off before H could run away and she’s the only victim.
The only takeaway from the story is that there are poor Nigerian nurses operating at the other end of the scale to Nigerian Princes
I thought it was an interesting story. I took no more from it than that
It may not have been the best example of migration but it's correct that this is a BIG factor in this election. We may not like that it is but it is.
Same goes in Europe.
If you don't want to feed the kind of BS that Leon posts then at least engage with the reasons behind it. Otherwise @Heathener is right that we are fuelling it through centrist complacency.
Exactly the same thing happened in the run up to Brexit. Fucking sneering complacency from the Metropoles. They couldn't see what was happening on their watch under their very noses.
Smell the coffee.
If immigration is such a big issue and we have had record immigration for the past several years aren't we the idiots that can't do anything about it. We are about to have a Lab landslide current predictions are for upwards of a 250-seat majority and I can promise you they won't be all that hard on immigration. Ergo, the country really doesn't care enough about immigration to vote someone in who's going to do anything about it.
Of course you're right that a sizeable minority cares a lot, but as it stands not enough people do for anything much to happen as a result.
Do you ever go to a restaurant, the hospital or need care, eat vegetables.... that is where all those people are....they are working. The economy would tank without immigration. I work in research, my research group of 35 has two brits.... both of us are only half brits - and both the half brits did our PhDs in other countries.... the talent is inherently international. The british population is ageing, and lacks education (often priced out of education due to child and youth poverty)
I'll say it again: Farage's Net Zero Migration plan is completely barking. Worse than anything Corbyn ever came up with. Farage would burn the country down if it made him king of the ash heap.
You don't like the idea of replacing emigrating pensioners with immigrating workers?
An independent takes Tain and Easter Ross in the last of this weeks by elections, slightly better SNP performance who take second from the LDs on first preferences (just)
Last time I tell an anecdote on here. It was an eye-opener for me and it was indicative of something which is clearly a significant driver in this election.
@Leon what you call ‘pub banter’ is often very off-putting, especially for women. This place can be a bear pit. And the pile-ons aren’t cool.
What distinguishes pb.com, or did on Mike Smithson’s watch, was people listening to those from various different perspectives. Sadly that is getting eroded and, with it, any attraction for those outside the ever-narrowing demographic.
xx
Someone is trying to scam a mattress off you and this is indicative of a significant driver in this election?
I think Heathener was trying to drop in a mischievous bomb before disappearing for a while, where everyone would either be attacking “nigerian nurses” or attacking those who were attacking Nigerian nurses. Unfortunately the bomb went off before H could run away and she’s the only victim.
The only takeaway from the story is that there are poor Nigerian nurses operating at the other end of the scale to Nigerian Princes
I thought it was an interesting story. I took no more from it than that
It may not have been the best example of migration but it's correct that this is a BIG factor in this election. We may not like that it is but it is.
Same goes in Europe.
If you don't want to feed the kind of BS that Leon posts then at least engage with the reasons behind it. Otherwise @Heathener is right that we are fuelling it through centrist complacency.
Exactly the same thing happened in the run up to Brexit. Fucking sneering complacency from the Metropoles. They couldn't see what was happening on their watch under their very noses.
Smell the coffee.
If immigration is such a big issue and we have had record immigration for the past several years aren't we the idiots that can't do anything about it. We are about to have a Lab landslide current predictions are for upwards of a 250-seat majority and I can promise you they won't be all that hard on immigration. Ergo, the country really doesn't care enough about immigration to vote someone in who's going to do anything about it.
Of course you're right that a sizeable minority cares a lot, but as it stands not enough people do for anything much to happen as a result.
Do you ever go to a restaurant, the hospital or need care, eat vegetables.... that is where all those people are....they are working. The economy would tank without immigration. I work in research, my research group of 35 has two brits.... both of us are only half brits - and both the half brits did our PhDs in other countries.... the talent is inherently international. The british population is ageing, and lacks education (often priced out of education due to child and youth poverty)
I'll say it again: Farage's Net Zero Migration plan is completely barking. Worse than anything Corbyn ever came up with. Farage would burn the country down if it made him king of the ash heap.
If you think the country would fall over if immigration was cut to 500,000 you're off the deep end.
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
What's not to like?
If you talk the people living in the villages west of Oxford? Everything apparently. Solar panels are the end of the world & they’d rather have an agricultural single-crop monoculture with no wildlife anywhere to be seen.
Greens at 9% and SNP 3% in Matt Goodwin's latest poll. Data tables now up on his website.
He has a massive gender split in party support. C-L-R of 14-47-12 among women and 23-33-21 among men.
As I've commented before, Reform is a blokeish party with little appeal to most women. I think, fortuitously, that puts a bit of a cap on the level they can reach.
The gender gap is smaller with other pollsters, but it still exists. Given that women line significantly longer than men, and so make up a disproportionately large fraction of the retired population, it's surprising to have such a gender split combined with the age split.
In YouGov, for example, Labour have a 21pp lead among women, and a 17pp lead among men, but the Tories do have a marginally higher share among women (18 v 17). The difference is explained by the larger Labour gender split (39 v 34) with Reform splitting the other way (14 v 24).
This is a potential challenge for any possible future New Farage Tory Party.
Are these weighted samples or are you subsampling? (If the latter please sound the Subsample Klaxon, Mr Password)...
I have avoided this topic entirely because I find it so toxic and this place is not my kind of natural demographic (I’m on here for betting reasons, so no offence meant). And I certainly do not want to light a touch paper.
However, I did encounter something I found very strange c. 18 months ago.
I was moving house and selling a few things which included a fairly new John Lewis mattress. I advertised on FB marketplace and the first person to respond clinched the sale. She sent a driver around with the cash to collect it.
I thought little more about it until 24 hours later she messaged me to say she wasn’t satisfied with the quality and wanted her money back. I was a bit taken aback (JLP aren’t usually rubbish) but I told her that was fine. Return the mattress and I’d refund her. Her reply was this:
’I am a Nigerian nurse who has come over here to work in your Health Service in response to your Government advertising in my country for people to come and help out in Britain. I have no money and I am doing you all a service so please give me the mattress for free.'
I was, and still am, on several levels astonished.
You obviously told her to get f@#ked?
I did.
For the benefit of Topping the startling part is obviously what she said. It’s sad that I have to spell it out, but for starters it wasn’t just her attitude: that somehow she had come to this country in order to help us out and was doing us a favour, that should mean freebies.
It was that the Government were recruiting Nigerian workers to make up for the (obvious) fact that others had left.
Where was this mentioned by the Leave campaign????
It was one personal encounter with what has clearly for many people become a serious issue: net migration.
And I’m a left-leaning person who loves multi-culturalism here. But there’s clearly a problem. We have totally fed Farage and us centrists ignore that at our grave peril.
You do realise we’ve been poaching labour for the NHS from commonwealth countries overseas since well before Brexit? They speak English, often have equivalent training, and will take the wages we offer. We recruit them because it takes a while to recruit and train them locally, so taking someone mid-career is an easy sugar fix. Zero link to Brexit.
Indeed, it’s been going on for decades.
Recruiting from overseas works in the short term to free up capacity, but long term we need more training places in the UK, and not have students in subjects like nursing getting into debt for a ‘degree’.
The BMA have until very recently been utterly opposed to more medical school places, preferring to encourage scarcity of doctors.
One of my pet ideas is to open a “British Hospital” somewhere like Mumbai or Manila, staffed at the top end by retired British doctors and managers doing it for a couple of years, and existing primarily to train up thousands of locals with UK-recognised qualifications that lead to visas. It also provides a service to the local population, and avoids taking mid-career professionals out of the country.
Medical school snootiness is a real issue. Doctors don’t need to be straight A students at A-level. They need good memories and a set of less academic competencies. However medical schools only favour the former.
One of my partner's daughter's best friends is...
Gold standard PB anecdote source.
My partner's daughter lives with us, and her friend is a regular visitor to our house. It's not that tenuous.
She is a first hand example of someone who gained a place at medical school despite having less than stellar A level grades. This is evidence that you don't actually need top grades to get into medical school in the UK, contradicting the claim made by the poster to whom I was responding.
Sigh….
I’m sure you’re telling the truth and your friend’s daughter found a way, but shall we inject some facts:
I’m about to take the stage and debate Penny Mordaunt, Nigel Farage and co.
Today of all days, when we released our manifesto, I'm proud to be able to take the stage and represent our party to deliver our message of change. The truth is, everyone I'm up against tonight wants to see Labour falter. But I’m well up for it and honestly, I’m determined to do you proud.
I’m going to give it my all, but it would mean a lot to me to know that you are standing with me. Please will you donate using my link below at:
One thing I see the Tories have leapt on from last night's forecast was Rayner not ruling out CGT on house sales, including family homes. That's something Labour need to squash very quickly. CGT on family home sales would be an utterly catastrophic thing to let into a GE campaign discourse. It would crater them.
Labour will have to raise taxes since they wont cut spending. Set aside the Con Accusation of £2094 which is really £3000. But £7.5 billion of declared increases wont raise £7.5 billion.
Oh I agree, but this is one they need to shut down or they'll take a big hit for.
Two examples
If North Sea oil is due to drop in price by 25% by year end as the IEA say then those windfall taxes have a bit of a hole. Some companies might actually be making a loss.
Likewise the VAT on school fees is a complete unknown with more down side that upside.
So the money will have to come from somewhere else.
All of the numbers are forecasts based on the information and facts we have now. Projections. So of course they will be wrong - most snapshots are.
The next government is almost certain to announce how Shocked and Outraged it is to discover the truth. Just how bad the nation's finances have been left, and how the Tories were covering it up. Sadly that means that x now needs to happen because of the Tories.
Basically take the Osborne script from 2010 and replace "Labour" with "Tories" and that is what we will get.
Of course, and that's when Starmer starts to take a hit. The surprising thing is his tax increases cant even pass the first sniff test.
He has been given a free pass because the Tory attacks have been so absurd and incredulous. Audiences laughing at them in debates. Ministers skewered on Sky News with that graphic. Even The Spectator repeating endlessly that on the Tory "Labour £2k tax" methodology the Tory increase would be £3k.
People are talking about tax alright. How much they are paying under the Tories and how little they are getting back for it. And how the Tories are lying to their face about it. Starmer doesn't need to defend or explain as the Tories have draw fire away from them.
Imagine the alternate strategy. Instead of Bad Penny ranting until told to shut up on the debate stage about fantasy Labour taxes, we have measured Penny. Sorry that taxes had to go up so much - Ukraine and Covid, Ukraine and Covid - but they do now have a plan to start reducing the pain. But Labour think you should keep paying more.
People might be paying attention. But as it is, nobody is.
I don't think blaming the tories for high taxes is indicative of people wanting to pay more.
Osborne ( and you will recall I'm not a fan ) had the good fortune to say he didn't know what he would find, which at the time of the GFC passed muster. Starmer and Reeves have painted themselves in to a corner saying no tax rises, everything is costed we know what we're doing etc.
Their manifesto had nothing much in it to promote growth despite the slogans.
I think theyre heading to overpromising and delivering little.
What gobsmacked me is that Sunak didn't know the net migration numbers in the Sky debate. Not a clue what they were. This is the numbers guy. She had to tell him what they were.
This is why the Right is on the march in Europe and now here. Centrist middle class Metropole fucking complacency.
The *far* right, not the right. They should own it.
Well I know people who I would never have called Far Right who are voting Reform
And the No.1 issue they all mention? Immigration. And they are on top of their facts about net migration numbers too.
@TOPPING says it doesn't matter to him but FUCK ME, it really does to these people and they are changing this election.
Do you think Brexit happened because of the Far Right? No. They whipped up enough of the right, and some on the left, to the cause. The rest is history.
Being complacent like the tories have been on this especially Sunak is now part of their undoing. He has bleated on about boat crossings but he has presided over the greatest level of net migration this country has EVER seen.
NET MIGRATION:
745,000 in 2022 685,000 in 2023
RECORD LEVELS
FFS this IS an issue like it or not. Bang out of order to take a pop at hethener when she was illustrating why this is a voter issue RIGHT NOW
Hmmm. Just been forwarded a letter from the police about safety and security during the campaign. Terrorism threat level is SUBSTANTIAL apparently.
Not sure I need to worry about Terrorism. Just angry Nats, of which there are quite a few commenting on my FB adverts with "get out of my town" and "fuck off back to England" etc
One odd comment on our village FB group. The village hall has been bedecked by Saltaires. Some wag tried to complain that the hall should not be used for political propaganda. Erm, its the Fitba, and thats the flag. Not remotely political...
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
What's not to like?
If you talk the people living in the villages west of Oxford? Everything apparently. Solar panels are the end of the world & they’d rather have a agricultural single-crop monoculture with no wildlife anywhere to be seen.
Clarkson’s Farm show was rather enlightening about the views of Oxfordshire people, and their elected representatives, regarding farming and farmers.
They clearly think that food just appears at M&S or Waitrose, and don’t like the idea that their lovely countryside views might be spoiled by the activity.
Greens at 9% and SNP 3% in Matt Goodwin's latest poll. Data tables now up on his website.
He has a massive gender split in party support. C-L-R of 14-47-12 among women and 23-33-21 among men.
As I've commented before, Reform is a blokeish party with little appeal to most women. I think, fortuitously, that puts a bit of a cap on the level they can reach.
From those figures, it looks as though the Tories have an almost identical problem.
Hmmm. Just been forwarded a letter from the police about safety and security during the campaign. Terrorism threat level is SUBSTANTIAL apparently.
Not sure I need to worry about Terrorism. Just angry Nats, of which there are quite a few commenting on my FB adverts with "get out of my town" and "fuck off back to England" etc
One odd comment on our village FB group. The village hall has been bedecked by Saltaires. Some wag tried to complain that the hall should not be used for political propaganda. Erm, its the Fitba, and thats the flag. Not remotely political...
Hmmm. Just been forwarded a letter from the police about safety and security during the campaign. Terrorism threat level is SUBSTANTIAL apparently.
Not sure I need to worry about Terrorism. Just angry Nats, of which there are quite a few commenting on my FB adverts with "get out of my town" and "fuck off back to England" etc
One odd comment on our village FB group. The village hall has been bedecked by Saltaires. Some wag tried to complain that the hall should not be used for political propaganda. Erm, its the Fitba, and thats the flag. Not remotely political...
SUBSTANTIAL, is the middle one of five threat levels.
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
In other words, it is your "creative interpretation" rather than Green Party policies.
Green Party councils & councillors opposing solar farms:
Oh wait, I forgot another ludicrous piece of Green hypocrisy: opposing HS2 & then proposing to ban all flights where a train service < 3 hours exists, thus pushing even more passengers onto services that are already at capacity.
Have you gathered that I /really/ don’t like the Greens yet?
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
What's not to like?
Veering slightly off topic, I have often wondered whether for solar farms, the economics would add up of putting solar on turntables - and using some of the power generated to aim the solar panel at the sun. It feels like this would be more efficient - you would make more in energy than you would lose in powering the movement. But perhaps the capital costs would be unrealistic.
One thing I see the Tories have leapt on from last night's forecast was Rayner not ruling out CGT on house sales, including family homes. That's something Labour need to squash very quickly. CGT on family home sales would be an utterly catastrophic thing to let into a GE campaign discourse. It would crater them.
Labour will have to raise taxes since they wont cut spending. Set aside the Con Accusation of £2094 which is really £3000. But £7.5 billion of declared increases wont raise £7.5 billion.
Oh I agree, but this is one they need to shut down or they'll take a big hit for.
Two examples
If North Sea oil is due to drop in price by 25% by year end as the IEA say then those windfall taxes have a bit of a hole. Some companies might actually be making a loss.
Likewise the VAT on school fees is a complete unknown with more down side that upside.
So the money will have to come from somewhere else.
All of the numbers are forecasts based on the information and facts we have now. Projections. So of course they will be wrong - most snapshots are.
The next government is almost certain to announce how Shocked and Outraged it is to discover the truth. Just how bad the nation's finances have been left, and how the Tories were covering it up. Sadly that means that x now needs to happen because of the Tories.
Basically take the Osborne script from 2010 and replace "Labour" with "Tories" and that is what we will get.
You would've thought an 'OMG it's worse than we thought' script had already been prepared, but it's impossible for us to know whether this means 2010 redux, or big tax hikes in areas where this hasn't been explicitly ruled out.
Insofar as you can take anything a politician ever says for granted, the insistence that we are not going back to austerity implies higher taxes, so Reeves won't be Osborne Mk.II. But can we be sure of this? No.
I have avoided this topic entirely because I find it so toxic and this place is not my kind of natural demographic (I’m on here for betting reasons, so no offence meant). And I certainly do not want to light a touch paper.
However, I did encounter something I found very strange c. 18 months ago.
I was moving house and selling a few things which included a fairly new John Lewis mattress. I advertised on FB marketplace and the first person to respond clinched the sale. She sent a driver around with the cash to collect it.
I thought little more about it until 24 hours later she messaged me to say she wasn’t satisfied with the quality and wanted her money back. I was a bit taken aback (JLP aren’t usually rubbish) but I told her that was fine. Return the mattress and I’d refund her. Her reply was this:
’I am a Nigerian nurse who has come over here to work in your Health Service in response to your Government advertising in my country for people to come and help out in Britain. I have no money and I am doing you all a service so please give me the mattress for free.'
I was, and still am, on several levels astonished.
You obviously told her to get f@#ked?
I did.
For the benefit of Topping the startling part is obviously what she said. It’s sad that I have to spell it out, but for starters it wasn’t just her attitude: that somehow she had come to this country in order to help us out and was doing us a favour, that should mean freebies.
It was that the Government were recruiting Nigerian workers to make up for the (obvious) fact that others had left.
Where was this mentioned by the Leave campaign????
It was one personal encounter with what has clearly for many people become a serious issue: net migration.
And I’m a left-leaning person who loves multi-culturalism here. But there’s clearly a problem. We have totally fed Farage and us centrists ignore that at our grave peril.
You do realise we’ve been poaching labour for the NHS from commonwealth countries overseas since well before Brexit? They speak English, often have equivalent training, and will take the wages we offer. We recruit them because it takes a while to recruit and train them locally, so taking someone mid-career is an easy sugar fix. Zero link to Brexit.
Indeed, it’s been going on for decades.
Recruiting from overseas works in the short term to free up capacity, but long term we need more training places in the UK, and not have students in subjects like nursing getting into debt for a ‘degree’.
The BMA have until very recently been utterly opposed to more medical school places, preferring to encourage scarcity of doctors.
One of my pet ideas is to open a “British Hospital” somewhere like Mumbai or Manila, staffed at the top end by retired British doctors and managers doing it for a couple of years, and existing primarily to train up thousands of locals with UK-recognised qualifications that lead to visas. It also provides a service to the local population, and avoids taking mid-career professionals out of the country.
Medical school snootiness is a real issue. Doctors don’t need to be straight A students at A-level. They need good memories and a set of less academic competencies. However medical schools only favour the former.
Is it? One of my partner's daughter's best friends is a medical student; she's quite smart but by no means a straight A student. She has actually struggled a lot with the course and workload, but has also been well supported by her various mentors.
It seems to me that the difficulty in recruiting trainee doctors in the UK is more to do with that fact that there are so many other ways for smart people to earn a decent wage that are far less arduous and require much less training.
As someone who sits on our Undergraduate admissions panel, I can confirm that we do not require Straight A's for admission. Indeed the only A we require is in Chemistry, as without it the pharmacology and Molecular biology is too difficult.
Indeed recently the University wanted to increase our grade requirements so we didn't need to look at so many applicants, but the panel was against. We want wider participation and academic assessment is only part of what we do at interview.
From time to time we do look at the interview scores and compare to in course performance to fine tune our assessments, so have a pretty good feedback system.
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
What's not to like?
If you talk the people living in the villages west of Oxford? Everything apparently. Solar panels are the end of the world & they’d rather have a agricultural single-crop monoculture with no wildlife anywhere to be seen.
Clarkson’s Farm show was rather enlightening about the views of Oxfordshire people, and their elected representatives, regarding farming and farmers.
They clearly think that food just appears at M&S or Waitrose, and don’t like the idea that their lovely countryside views might be spoiled by the activity.
Those are the incomers. In Wiltshire, you had people specifically angry at the idea of jobs for the locals. Because this would raise the price of labour locally, and it would cost more to get someone to do the gardening.
Hmmm. Just been forwarded a letter from the police about safety and security during the campaign. Terrorism threat level is SUBSTANTIAL apparently.
Not sure I need to worry about Terrorism. Just angry Nats, of which there are quite a few commenting on my FB adverts with "get out of my town" and "fuck off back to England" etc
One odd comment on our village FB group. The village hall has been bedecked by Saltaires. Some wag tried to complain that the hall should not be used for political propaganda. Erm, its the Fitba, and thats the flag. Not remotely political...
Following your posts, I had a little flutter on you winning your seat at 66/1. So, could you please:
1. Stop posting on here and get out campaigning. I don't imagine there are many PBers in your constituency. 2. Pretend you're Scottish for a few weeks.
Election takes a back seat from today, I think - especially from Sunday but starting this evening as eventual winners Germany take on Scotland.
Barring something blackswannish now, I think we're sticking with where we're at. IMVHO polls overstate REF, understate CON in the actual event. Will probably end up something like:
Lab 38% Con 26% Ref 12% LD 11% (but efficient) Green 5% SNP 3% Others 5%
ElCalc-ing, that translates to:
Lab 386 Con 172 Ref 3 LD 41 Grn 2 SNP 21 PC 4 NI: 18 Other 3
I could see Reform winning Clacton, Ashfield and at a push Boston and Skegness. Once you get to there though, it becomes all about where their vote is spread and how it affects the LAB/CON vote in each seat. There is a theoretical route to them winning a clutch of red wall seats and even some Tory shire heartlands, but only if the crossover narrative really takes off.
Hmmm. Just been forwarded a letter from the police about safety and security during the campaign. Terrorism threat level is SUBSTANTIAL apparently.
Not sure I need to worry about Terrorism. Just angry Nats, of which there are quite a few commenting on my FB adverts with "get out of my town" and "fuck off back to England" etc
One odd comment on our village FB group. The village hall has been bedecked by Saltaires. Some wag tried to complain that the hall should not be used for political propaganda. Erm, its the Fitba, and thats the flag. Not remotely political...
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
What's not to like?
Veering slightly off topic, I have often wondered whether for solar farms, the economics would add up of putting solar on turntables - and using some of the power generated to aim the solar panel at the sun. It feels like this would be more efficient - you would make more in energy than you would lose in powering the movement. But perhaps the capital costs would be unrealistic.
Anything that sits outside needs as few moving parts as possible.
Hence Starlink removing the motors from the antenna - no longer required, since they filled out the constellation, costs money, goes wrong.
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
What's not to like?
If you talk the people living in the villages west of Oxford? Everything apparently. Solar panels are the end of the world & they’d rather have a agricultural single-crop monoculture with no wildlife anywhere to be seen.
Clarkson’s Farm show was rather enlightening about the views of Oxfordshire people, and their elected representatives, regarding farming and farmers.
They clearly think that food just appears at M&S or Waitrose, and don’t like the idea that their lovely countryside views might be spoiled by the activity.
Those are the incomers. In Wiltshire, you had people specifically angry at the idea of jobs for the locals. Because this would raise the price of labour locally, and it would cost more to get someone to do the gardening.
Hmmm. Just been forwarded a letter from the police about safety and security during the campaign. Terrorism threat level is SUBSTANTIAL apparently.
Not sure I need to worry about Terrorism. Just angry Nats, of which there are quite a few commenting on my FB adverts with "get out of my town" and "fuck off back to England" etc
One odd comment on our village FB group. The village hall has been bedecked by Saltaires. Some wag tried to complain that the hall should not be used for political propaganda. Erm, its the Fitba, and thats the flag. Not remotely political...
Following your posts, I had a little flutter on you winning your seat at 66/1. So, could you please:
1. Stop posting on here and get out campaigning. I don't imagine there are many PBers in your constituency. 2. Pretend you're Scottish for a few weeks.
Hmmm. Just been forwarded a letter from the police about safety and security during the campaign. Terrorism threat level is SUBSTANTIAL apparently.
Not sure I need to worry about Terrorism. Just angry Nats, of which there are quite a few commenting on my FB adverts with "get out of my town" and "fuck off back to England" etc
One odd comment on our village FB group. The village hall has been bedecked by Saltaires. Some wag tried to complain that the hall should not be used for political propaganda. Erm, its the Fitba, and thats the flag. Not remotely political...
Following your posts, I had a little flutter on you winning your seat at 66/1. So, could you please:
1. Stop posting on here and get out campaigning. I don't imagine there are many PBers in your constituency. 2. Pretend you're Scottish for a few weeks.
Yes thanks I meant the fixed odds part of bf not the exchanges.
OK (sorry, been out keeping my dentist in champagne and caviar).
I get the impression, but do not know, that some online bookmakers will suspend a market automatically if a series of bets unbalances a book, until their lone politics trader turns up to work the next day. I know I've often gone to place a bet in the wee small hours and cannot find the market on, say, Hills, whereas Bet365 are more reliable.
Hmmm. Just been forwarded a letter from the police about safety and security during the campaign. Terrorism threat level is SUBSTANTIAL apparently.
Not sure I need to worry about Terrorism. Just angry Nats, of which there are quite a few commenting on my FB adverts with "get out of my town" and "fuck off back to England" etc
One odd comment on our village FB group. The village hall has been bedecked by Saltaires. Some wag tried to complain that the hall should not be used for political propaganda. Erm, its the Fitba, and thats the flag. Not remotely political...
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
What's not to like?
Veering slightly off topic, I have often wondered whether for solar farms, the economics would add up of putting solar on turntables - and using some of the power generated to aim the solar panel at the sun. It feels like this would be more efficient - you would make more in energy than you would lose in powering the movement. But perhaps the capital costs would be unrealistic.
Hmmm. Just been forwarded a letter from the police about safety and security during the campaign. Terrorism threat level is SUBSTANTIAL apparently.
Not sure I need to worry about Terrorism. Just angry Nats, of which there are quite a few commenting on my FB adverts with "get out of my town" and "fuck off back to England" etc
One odd comment on our village FB group. The village hall has been bedecked by Saltaires. Some wag tried to complain that the hall should not be used for political propaganda. Erm, its the Fitba, and thats the flag. Not remotely political...
Following your posts, I had a little flutter on you winning your seat at 66/1. So, could you please:
1. Stop posting on here and get out campaigning. I don't imagine there are many PBers in your constituency. 2. Pretend you're Scottish for a few weeks.
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
What's not to like?
Veering slightly off topic, I have often wondered whether for solar farms, the economics would add up of putting solar on turntables - and using some of the power generated to aim the solar panel at the sun. It feels like this would be more efficient - you would make more in energy than you would lose in powering the movement. But perhaps the capital costs would be unrealistic.
They exist, though I've not seen many. There is one outside the Super-U supermarket in Prisse near Macon. It's a sort of fold out flower petal / windmill shape of interlocking panels, and it turns around with the sun. Presumably the cost of the mechanical components outweighs the benefit which is why we don't see many. Flat fixed panels are so insanely cheap.
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
What's not to like?
If you talk the people living in the villages west of Oxford? Everything apparently. Solar panels are the end of the world & they’d rather have a agricultural single-crop monoculture with no wildlife anywhere to be seen.
Clarkson’s Farm show was rather enlightening about the views of Oxfordshire people, and their elected representatives, regarding farming and farmers.
They clearly think that food just appears at M&S or Waitrose, and don’t like the idea that their lovely countryside views might be spoiled by the activity.
Those are the incomers. In Wiltshire, you had people specifically angry at the idea of jobs for the locals. Because this would raise the price of labour locally, and it would cost more to get someone to do the gardening.
No, literally.
And these were self proclaimed LibDems/Greens.
Jeez, and Topping has the gall to call out the credibility of my anecdotes!
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
What's not to like?
Veering slightly off topic, I have often wondered whether for solar farms, the economics would add up of putting solar on turntables - and using some of the power generated to aim the solar panel at the sun. It feels like this would be more efficient - you would make more in energy than you would lose in powering the movement. But perhaps the capital costs would be unrealistic.
Greens at 9% and SNP 3% in Matt Goodwin's latest poll. Data tables now up on his website.
He has a massive gender split in party support. C-L-R of 14-47-12 among women and 23-33-21 among men.
As I've commented before, Reform is a blokeish party with little appeal to most women. I think, fortuitously, that puts a bit of a cap on the level they can reach.
The gender gap is smaller with other pollsters, but it still exists. Given that women line significantly longer than men, and so make up a disproportionately large fraction of the retired population, it's surprising to have such a gender split combined with the age split.
In YouGov, for example, Labour have a 21pp lead among women, and a 17pp lead among men, but the Tories do have a marginally higher share among women (18 v 17). The difference is explained by the larger Labour gender split (39 v 34) with Reform splitting the other way (14 v 24).
This is a potential challenge for any possible future New Farage Tory Party.
Are these weighted samples or are you subsampling? (If the latter please sound the Subsample Klaxon, Mr Password)...
They're all subsamples unless discovering stated otherwise.
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
What's not to like?
Veering slightly off topic, I have often wondered whether for solar farms, the economics would add up of putting solar on turntables - and using some of the power generated to aim the solar panel at the sun. It feels like this would be more efficient - you would make more in energy than you would lose in powering the movement. But perhaps the capital costs would be unrealistic.
They do use that sort of thing for specialist applications, such as solar furnaces where presumably maximum power input is important.
But for common or garden sites, I'm not sure it makes much difference - the sun will be at low incidences in the earlyu morning and late evening so those orientations aren't much use anyway, and a general southward facing azimuth and compromise altitude will get you a lot for no extra capital than a fixed orientation.
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
What's not to like?
Veering slightly off topic, I have often wondered whether for solar farms, the economics would add up of putting solar on turntables - and using some of the power generated to aim the solar panel at the sun. It feels like this would be more efficient - you would make more in energy than you would lose in powering the movement. But perhaps the capital costs would be unrealistic.
Not energy, but maintenance and safety would be the issue, I think. In the wild, you'd need robust low maintenance system to do the turning and also potential liabilities for anyone/anything injured or damaged by a moving solar panel (ok, they'd move super slow, but still possibilities of things getting caught etc. You'd also not be able to put the panels in as densely as you'd need clearance around each one for the rotation, which may well offset the extra generation per panel.
There is a fuck of a lot of pontificating on this site from people who are sat at their keyboards and not out knocking on doors, meeting the voters.
So who on here has been pounding the pavements? Own up...
And tell us if your experience matches the polls.
Did my first ever doorknocking last weekend. Gorgeous sunny day. Flats in the local area. Spoke to 0 voters in person, everyone out at the beach. One called down on the intercom and said I'm busy, I don't want to talk to you but I'm voting Labour.
Generally the other door knockers said things were really positive but kinda suspect they'd say that anyway!
Hmmm. Just been forwarded a letter from the police about safety and security during the campaign. Terrorism threat level is SUBSTANTIAL apparently.
Not sure I need to worry about Terrorism. Just angry Nats, of which there are quite a few commenting on my FB adverts with "get out of my town" and "fuck off back to England" etc
One odd comment on our village FB group. The village hall has been bedecked by Saltaires. Some wag tried to complain that the hall should not be used for political propaganda. Erm, its the Fitba, and thats the flag. Not remotely political...
Following your posts, I had a little flutter on you winning your seat at 66/1. So, could you please:
1. Stop posting on here and get out campaigning. I don't imagine there are many PBers in your constituency. 2. Pretend you're Scottish for a few weeks.
What @Northern_Al says - my less than 50 Tory seats at 25-1 was the bet I wanted to boost about, you winning at 66-1 is a way better story
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
In other words, it is your "creative interpretation" rather than Green Party policies.
Green Party councils & councillors opposing solar farms:
Oh wait, I forgot another ludicrous piece of Green hypocrisy: opposing HS2 & then proposing to ban all flights where a train service < 3 hours exists, thus pushing even more passengers onto services that are already at capacity.
Have you gathered that I /really/ don’t like the Greens yet?
You're possibly more put off by greens than Bart - and he claims not to have eaten any for months!
I think what I am seeing with a lot of comments on here is 'centrist denial' and this could actually have some betting implications. People are reading the current situation in an essentially 20th century way ie what is happening on the right is 'extremists' 'splitting' and who will become increasingly irrellevant over time. This overlooks what has been happening over the last decade on a global scale with the rise of insurgent political movements that disrupt political norms- Brexit, Trump, Italy, France, Germany, the list goes on.
What seems apparent to me is that we are seeing the final death through incoherance and exhaustion of the 'broad church' conservative party and the creation of a more coherent right wing political movement which can, like everything else that has happened globally, begin as a ridiculed insurgency but end up close to, or achieving power, building on dissatisfaction with the inevitable failings of the 'centrist, managerial status quo'. It is a small jump from 30% to 40% but the latter can win a general election under the FPTP system.
It may not be 'reform' that carries this insurgency forward. It could be a revised version of the Conservative Party having dumped the Hunts, Sunaks and Mordaunts. Or a 'start up' party of the type Cummings suggests. But to just assume all this is irrelevant extremism just seems to be an act of enormous denial given what is happening on a global scale.
The analysis on here is fucking pitiful, if I am honest. Really really feeble. For all the reasons you state, it is a bunch of middle aged and frankly geriatric twats looking hopefully at reality through a 20th century prism, and with quite low watt IQ levels to illuminate the view
Idiots
And I speak as a late middle aged twat, but at least I'm not wearing the Goggles of Denial
Why do you come here? I don't think you're universally liked on here, and you seem to despise us. So why not fuck off? I think you'd be happier. I know I would be. Go on, do it. Sling your hook. What have you got to lose?
See. That's EXACTLY why I come here. To really wind up people like you. And I REALLY do wind you up, don't I?
If this was actually a pub I reckon you'd have angrily asked me outside at least eight times by now, in a frothing, slightly insane way, as the barman rolls his eyes and tells you to chill out, Farooq, not again, fer fucks sake
Yes, you do wind me up, but not always the times you're trying to. I think you've got a 10% hit rate. But let's not focus on me, let's think about you. I'm not offering you a fight outside the pub, I'm saying you really don't seem to like the people in here. You seem really quite miserable about how stupid we all are. So go. There's the door. You don't ever have to read a single thing any of us say ever again. You're better than us, go find a more elevated place. You won't miss us.
You're misunderestimating Leon. And PB. It's a big family and you can't tell your co-worker/boss/underling/agent to go fuck themselves so you tell your actual family. Except, because you are not six years old, you can't tell your family either. So you tell PB.
It is weirdly true. Occasionally I let a PB-er get under my skin (or at least I used to, it happens rarely now, if ever)
eg I remember being seriously angry that NPXMP laughed about the way the EU Constitution was blithely passed without a public vote, by means of Labour's double dealing. I thought this was tantamount to treachery and the laughter made it all so much worse, I was like @Farooq asking me outside, I wanted to give NPXMP a slap, literally.....
Looking back 1. Yes I was right, it was stupid, we Brexited because of the stupid crap Labour did on the EU and 2. Who carew? Why did I get so angry? Why did @NickPalmer wind me up so much??
Now I am rather fond of the old fella. I was sad to hear of his medical news - a minor stroke. I hope he is OK. If Nick is reading - hope you're OK! I would like to see him canvassing the fearful streets of Surrey for another two decades, and telling us all about his promising returns
And now I am getting sentimental and there is another air raid siren. That really IS a signal for me to go to work, and ignore the air raid siren
Ta-ra
Nick had a stroke? I had missed that. Best wished Nick - yes, hope he's recovering and will be with us for a while yet. NPMP as he was then was the first person to interact with me on pb.com, I think.
I hadn't heard that either. Best wishes to @NickPalmer for a speedy recovery. Don't work too hard sir and hope to see you back on the site soon.
Yes best wishes to him. Always an interesting poster to read and not afraid to make a calm case against consensus.
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
What's not to like?
Veering slightly off topic, I have often wondered whether for solar farms, the economics would add up of putting solar on turntables - and using some of the power generated to aim the solar panel at the sun. It feels like this would be more efficient - you would make more in energy than you would lose in powering the movement. But perhaps the capital costs would be unrealistic.
Anything that sits outside needs as few moving parts as possible.
Hence Starlink removing the motors from the antenna - no longer required, since they filled out the constellation, costs money, goes wrong.
Turntables would either be really expensive or really unreliable, needing people to constantly be on site. Fine when it’s a massive telescope or radio dish, less so when you’re trying to make small money on solar generation.
I still like the bonkers idea of renting a few square miles of desert in North-Western Morocco, and running a big cable back to the UK. The cable is the expensive bit, but once it’s in place you can expand the solar farm over hundreds of square miles.
It would probably need storage to be cheaper than it is now though, so the demand and supply curves over the day can be lined up.
I think what I am seeing with a lot of comments on here is 'centrist denial' and this could actually have some betting implications. People are reading the current situation in an essentially 20th century way ie what is happening on the right is 'extremists' 'splitting' and who will become increasingly irrellevant over time. This overlooks what has been happening over the last decade on a global scale with the rise of insurgent political movements that disrupt political norms- Brexit, Trump, Italy, France, Germany, the list goes on.
What seems apparent to me is that we are seeing the final death through incoherance and exhaustion of the 'broad church' conservative party and the creation of a more coherent right wing political movement which can, like everything else that has happened globally, begin as a ridiculed insurgency but end up close to, or achieving power, building on dissatisfaction with the inevitable failings of the 'centrist, managerial status quo'. It is a small jump from 30% to 40% but the latter can win a general election under the FPTP system.
It may not be 'reform' that carries this insurgency forward. It could be a revised version of the Conservative Party having dumped the Hunts, Sunaks and Mordaunts. Or a 'start up' party of the type Cummings suggests. But to just assume all this is irrelevant extremism just seems to be an act of enormous denial given what is happening on a global scale.
Isn’t there a danger though that MPs, such as Sunak, get mislabelled and dumped. Everything I read about Sunak before he was Chancellor etc, and I took interest early from an old boys mag heads-up, was that he was very much a low tax, small gov, pro Brexit person. Even articles he’d written at school were in this vein.
The problem is that when the reality of having to stop everyone’s businesses collapsing and everyone losing their jobs came along with Covid, then having to pay for it, then the crazy cost of living crisis thanks to Russia, the state did what small state people actually do believe in, and acted as a safety net. Unfortunately it was a ridiculously expensive safety net.
So Sunak, a small state low tax politician by instinct had to do something he wouldn’t want to do but added to that government is hemmed in by treasury and market orthodoxies so there are very few “acceptable solutions”.
So Sunak, and Hunt, being dry, sound money politicians are left with a shitshow where they have to regain trust of markets (after the Truss event) and try and restore stability to the economy. These aren’t sexy things to do. You don’t get thanks for it from the public because the public wants you to hose money on their pet projects but want you to take that money from anyone but them.
In the meantime you’ve got immigration soaring, countless policies and tweaks have failed, different wings want different actions, some elements of society will do anything to stop your measures. It’s bearable to a gov if the country is in good shape economically but the absolute focus has been on the economy by Sunak and Hunt and Sunak isn’t a salesman who can say “yeah sorry people, country is in a mess (by the way I did warn it would happen with Truss but was ignored) and as soon as we have sorted the economy we will turn on immigration as diligently.
So back to the beginning if you wrongly identify the problems and problem MPs you will get the wrong solutions. The right needs to be flexible and clear that sometimes there need to be big taxes and big gov in emergencies and yes we’ve raised taxes but our instincts are always to lower when we can where Labour’s are to keep high or raise permanently.
I think these are fair points but you are mixing up what should happen with what is likely to happen. Sunak etc come to represent something that they are not.
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
What's not to like?
If you talk the people living in the villages west of Oxford? Everything apparently. Solar panels are the end of the world & they’d rather have an agricultural single-crop monoculture with no wildlife anywhere to be seen.
Some of them, maybe. We're a village west of Oxford - ok, a very small town - and we have a community-owned solar farm which more or less everyone loves. One of the prime movers was/is the leader of the local LibDems. Another was the chair of the national Green Party. (Checkable on Companies House, should you be so inclined.)
Don't mistake one well-organised campaign group for an accurate survey of public opinion.
Clarkson’s Farm show was rather enlightening about the views of Oxfordshire people, and their elected representatives, regarding farming and farmers.
They clearly think that food just appears at M&S or Waitrose, and don’t like the idea that their lovely countryside views might be spoiled by the activity.
You do know that Clarkson's Farm is entertainment and not a factual documentary...
Election takes a back seat from today, I think - especially from Sunday but starting this evening as eventual winners Germany take on Scotland.
Barring something blackswannish now, I think we're sticking with where we're at. IMVHO polls overstate REF, understate CON in the actual event. Will probably end up something like:
Lab 38% Con 26% Ref 12% LD 11% (but efficient) Green 5% SNP 3% Others 5%
ElCalc-ing, that translates to:
Lab 386 Con 172 Ref 3 LD 41 Grn 2 SNP 21 PC 4 NI: 18 Other 3
That's almost exactly what I think too. (I'm sorry to say, as I'm yet to be substantively correct on any political prediction I make).
Hmmm. Just been forwarded a letter from the police about safety and security during the campaign. Terrorism threat level is SUBSTANTIAL apparently.
Not sure I need to worry about Terrorism. Just angry Nats, of which there are quite a few commenting on my FB adverts with "get out of my town" and "fuck off back to England" etc
One odd comment on our village FB group. The village hall has been bedecked by Saltaires. Some wag tried to complain that the hall should not be used for political propaganda. Erm, its the Fitba, and thats the flag. Not remotely political...
Following your posts, I had a little flutter on you winning your seat at 66/1. So, could you please:
1. Stop posting on here and get out campaigning. I don't imagine there are many PBers in your constituency. 2. Pretend you're Scottish for a few weeks.
If I'm tapping away on here its as a distraction from the endless client project meetings I am in. Campaigning being done digitally, and physically outside work time. Still have two more trips south before polling day.
From what I can see of the campaigns: SNP: Candidate and teams out practically full time LD: Limited doorknocking in selected pockets to dip for mood. Which feeds into digital campaigning specifically targeted on issues. Big spend increase this week with another next week. Last week campaign in plan Con: Has put up pictures of a doorknocking session. But a lot of him being away elsewhere. The visible campaign of David Duguid has essentially stopped. Haven't seen leaflets or social media Lab: Candidate having a great time walking various parts of Aberdeenshire some of which may be in the constituency albeit without actual voters RefUK: No clue
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
What's not to like?
Veering slightly off topic, I have often wondered whether for solar farms, the economics would add up of putting solar on turntables - and using some of the power generated to aim the solar panel at the sun. It feels like this would be more efficient - you would make more in energy than you would lose in powering the movement. But perhaps the capital costs would be unrealistic.
The main problem is maintenance I think. The energy required to turn each panel is negligible, but now you have a field with 10,000 motors, and moving parts that can be jammed by debris.
Also shadows from neighbouring solar panels as they turn.
There is a fuck of a lot of pontificating on this site from people who are sat at their keyboards and not out knocking on doors, meeting the voters.
So who on here has been pounding the pavements? Own up...
And tell us if your experience matches the polls.
I've knocked on around 200 doors so far here and in Wimbledon. Solid LibDem. Great conversations even with new Reform supporters, - there are quite a few. Labour supporters know how to vote.
The universal feeling is we have to get rid of the Tories. No-one mentions policies. Few mention personalities. It's just get the fing Tories out.
But there are Tories out there. A few (very few) say "we are a Tory household. We've always voted Conservative and will continue to do so". Some say "I've always voted Conservative but I'm really upset with them and I don't know what to do." "Then vote for us" say I "and send them a message". "I will" they say and I walk away with a smile.
Would it be wise to look much beyond Sabalenka (3/1), Swiatek (7/2), or Rybakina (9/2)? Possibly not. All three of those odds have reasons to be attractive bets and a case could be made for any of the three.
I’m beginning to think @Sandpit that you were correct about Emma Raducanu when you suggested that her US Open win would prove her to be a one-hit wonder. However, she has shown a bit of form in 2024 especially in the Billie Jean Cup and she will be playing back on grass.
At 33/1, widely available right now, I think she’s worth a flutter.
This is not a proposition that she is going to win Wimbledon. It’s a proposition that 33/1 is worth a casual bet.
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
What's not to like?
If you talk the people living in the villages west of Oxford? Everything apparently. Solar panels are the end of the world & they’d rather have a agricultural single-crop monoculture with no wildlife anywhere to be seen.
Clarkson’s Farm show was rather enlightening about the views of Oxfordshire people, and their elected representatives, regarding farming and farmers.
They clearly think that food just appears at M&S or Waitrose, and don’t like the idea that their lovely countryside views might be spoiled by the activity.
Those are the incomers. In Wiltshire, you had people specifically angry at the idea of jobs for the locals. Because this would raise the price of labour locally, and it would cost more to get someone to do the gardening.
No, literally.
And these were self proclaimed LibDems/Greens.
Jeez, and Topping has the gall to call out the credibility of my anecdotes!
It was fucking weird - the incomers regarded the locals as a subspecies. Annoying wildlife. If you had the same attitude to people with a suntan, it would be full on racism.
And social mixing was right out.
I got complaints because I drank in a "local" pub.
Yet people would bang on about how they were "liberal". I think they hadn't quite worked out that being liberal doesn't mean kicking the revolting peasants.
While I wasn't there at the time, I understand that the locals housing estate was solidly BREXIT, the nice stone bits full of the incomers, Remainer. The story of BREXIT in a nutshell.
Greens at 9% and SNP 3% in Matt Goodwin's latest poll. Data tables now up on his website.
He has a massive gender split in party support. C-L-R of 14-47-12 among women and 23-33-21 among men.
As I've commented before, Reform is a blokeish party with little appeal to most women. I think, fortuitously, that puts a bit of a cap on the level they can reach.
From those figures, it looks as though the Tories have an almost identical problem.
There’s a reason that the Farage party doesn’t fly with women. Farage reminds us of the chap that sniggers if the waitress’ nipples are mentioned.
It wouldn’t happen in front of Starmer.
Lots of Tory MPs being investigated for no specified reason isn’t helping the Tory brand much either.
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
What's not to like?
Veering slightly off topic, I have often wondered whether for solar farms, the economics would add up of putting solar on turntables - and using some of the power generated to aim the solar panel at the sun. It feels like this would be more efficient - you would make more in energy than you would lose in powering the movement. But perhaps the capital costs would be unrealistic.
Anything that sits outside needs as few moving parts as possible.
Hence Starlink removing the motors from the antenna - no longer required, since they filled out the constellation, costs money, goes wrong.
Turntables would either be really expensive or really unreliable, needing people to constantly be on site. Fine when it’s a massive telescope or radio dish, less so when you’re trying to make small money on solar generation.
I still like the bonkers idea of renting a few square miles of desert in North-Western Morocco, and running a big cable back to the UK. The cable is the expensive bit, but once it’s in place you can expand the solar farm over hundreds of square miles.
It would probably need storage to be cheaper than it is now though, so the demand and supply curves over the day can be lined up.
That's not especially bonkers. Long distance cables now have very low loses. Part of the quiet revolution in electronics and materials in the past few decades.
There are a number of proposals to create a Europe wide grid (and beyond).
There is a fuck of a lot of pontificating on this site from people who are sat at their keyboards and not out knocking on doors, meeting the voters.
So who on here has been pounding the pavements? Own up...
And tell us if your experience matches the polls.
I've knocked on around 200 doors so far here and in Wimbledon. Solid LibDem. Great conversations even with new Reform supporters, - there are quite a few. Labour supporters know how to vote.
The universal feeling is we have to get rid of the Tories. No-one mentions policies. Few mention personalities. It's just get the fing Tories out.
But there are Tories out there. A few (very few) say "we are a Tory household. We've always voted Conservative and will continue to do so". Some say "I've always voted Conservative but I'm really upset with them and I don't know what to do." "Then vote for us" say I "and send them a message". "I will" they say and I walk away with a smile.
You will be holding Wimbledon for a long while if the Tories go where I think they will next. Wimbledon is exactly the kind of seat that Johnson's strategy would always end up losing.
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
What's not to like?
If you talk the people living in the villages west of Oxford? Everything apparently. Solar panels are the end of the world & they’d rather have a agricultural single-crop monoculture with no wildlife anywhere to be seen.
Clarkson’s Farm show was rather enlightening about the views of Oxfordshire people, and their elected representatives, regarding farming and farmers.
They clearly think that food just appears at M&S or Waitrose, and don’t like the idea that their lovely countryside views might be spoiled by the activity.
Those are the incomers. In Wiltshire, you had people specifically angry at the idea of jobs for the locals. Because this would raise the price of labour locally, and it would cost more to get someone to do the gardening.
No, literally.
And these were self proclaimed LibDems/Greens.
Jeez, and Topping has the gall to call out the credibility of my anecdotes!
@TOPPING seems to be ready to jump on any anecdote that doesn’t fit his narrowly-conceived view of the world.
It’s always the danger in an echo chamber. Someone comes along with an alternate reality and they feel threatened and get personally abusive, aggressive even.
Also catching up on various news titbits and polling, broadcasts, and debates.
I’m not sure how anyone interested in politics can describe this is as a dull election? It’s the most interesting, and exciting, campaign of my life. I guess for different reasons 2019 and 2017 were also fun to watch, and I appreciate that if you are a Conservative party worker this must be hell on earth right now, but for neutrals it’s absolutely fascinating.
There are still so many permutations, from truly landscape altering to something more nuanced. Can anyone really say they are sure which way this is going from here?
It is evidence that politics is subject to the same disruption as many areas of life. The conservative collapse though was foreshadowed in the 2019 Euro elections (why does this never get discussed) where they had a similar collapse/ 'extinction level event'. There was then a miraculous political reinvention which didn't last. What I find quite amusing is that, against this backdrop, people still cling to the idea that there are 'political norms' that still apply ie 'elections are won in the centre'. I think anything can happen, the arrival of 'reform' is just the beginning.
Every British election in my lifetime has been won by the party in the centre.
It's just the centre moves over time. And calling yourself centrist doesn't make you so.
In 2017-19 the centrist position was to get Brexit done, but we had self-proclaimed "centrists" who wouldn't accept the will of the voters in the Referendum. So the party that pitched to the centre won nearly 50% of the vote while the parties that did not lost.
Today the centrist position is that things are broken that need fixing and that it's time for a change.
The arrival of Reform is no more meaningful than the arrival of their predecessors like the BNP. They're nobodies who will get either zero or next to zero MPs and will never win an election.
What is it that is bothering you exactly about Reform? They have policies that based on your posting history you would probably like, IE dealing severely with violent criminals. The BNP were never the second most popular party in an opinion poll, or anywhere near.
I don't like racist, anti-immigration shitbags for starters.
So you are just pro immigration. As am I albeit with some caveats. But I don't think a policy of 'net zero immigration' is inherently 'racist'. It was actually the policy of conservative party for many years (zero net migration). Some of the people associated with Reform have a tendency to make personal attacks and slurs against others but this is definetly also true of some of their critics.
The visceral, reactive hatred of Reform just adds to their appeal and will propel them forward.
Clarkson’s Farm show was rather enlightening about the views of Oxfordshire people, and their elected representatives, regarding farming and farmers.
They clearly think that food just appears at M&S or Waitrose, and don’t like the idea that their lovely countryside views might be spoiled by the activity.
You do know that Clarkson's Farm is entertainment and not a factual documentary...
The council meetings were actual meetings, and the opposition to everything the local farmers were trying to do to make money, was very real. He’s running a real farm, and his neighbours are running real farms too, constantly worried about how they can avoid bankruptcy, which Clarkson can avoid because he’s got the cameras following him around.
Yes there’s going to be some dramatisation and some storylines, but the fact that farmers across the UK have hailed the show as brilliant tells you it’s a fair reflection of that industry. Many farmers see themselves as custodians of the land, much of which has been with families for many generations, and see it as a vocation as much as a job.
Clarkson’s Farm show was rather enlightening about the views of Oxfordshire people, and their elected representatives, regarding farming and farmers.
They clearly think that food just appears at M&S or Waitrose, and don’t like the idea that their lovely countryside views might be spoiled by the activity.
You do know that Clarkson's Farm is entertainment and not a factual documentary...
The council meetings were actual meetings, and the opposition to everything the local farmers were trying to do to make money, was very real. He’s running a real farm, and his neighbours are running real farms too, constantly worried about how they can avoid bankruptcy, which Clarkson can avoid because he’s got the cameras following him around.
Yes there’s going to be some dramatisation and some storylines, but the fact that farmers across the UK have hailed the show as brilliant tells you it’s a fair reflection of that industry. Many farmers see themselves as custodians of the land, much of which has been with families for many generations, and see it as a vocation as much as a job.
The reason that Clarkson's Farm can avoid bankruptcy is the large fees he makes for... Clarkson's Farm. The actual business of Clarkson's Farm is a side hustle.
That being said, diversification and specialisation are the classic way to save farms.
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
In other words, it is your "creative interpretation" rather than Green Party policies.
Green Party councils & councillors opposing solar farms:
Greens opposing solar farms in AONBs, nature reserves etc doesn't mean they oppose them everywhere. A handful of cherry-picked local examples doesn't mean it's their national policy.
Speaking to journalists on Friday, Rishi Sunak defended Biden: "From what I remember, he went to go and shake all their hands. As far as I’m aware, he went over to talk to some of the the parachutes jumpers to say thank you or hello”
The Tories own the immigration numbers and can’t run away from that . There’s never been a proper debate in the UK about immigration . The pros and cons .
The irony is of course that EU migration would have dropped regardless of the Brexit vote , that EU nationals are less likely to bring family members and are a net positive for the Treasury.
Many Brits refuse to do jobs in hospitality and agriculture and yet keep moaning about immigration .
If you want much lower migration then some business will go to the wall . If that’s what the Brits want then they should understand the trade offs .
The debate in the EU is different . Free movement isn’t the issue but illegal migration. The Brits have ended up with the worst of all worlds . They lost their FOM rights for bugger all and have seen immigration go up steeply .
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
What's not to like?
Veering slightly off topic, I have often wondered whether for solar farms, the economics would add up of putting solar on turntables - and using some of the power generated to aim the solar panel at the sun. It feels like this would be more efficient - you would make more in energy than you would lose in powering the movement. But perhaps the capital costs would be unrealistic.
Anything that sits outside needs as few moving parts as possible.
Hence Starlink removing the motors from the antenna - no longer required, since they filled out the constellation, costs money, goes wrong.
Turntables would either be really expensive or really unreliable, needing people to constantly be on site. Fine when it’s a massive telescope or radio dish, less so when you’re trying to make small money on solar generation.
I still like the bonkers idea of renting a few square miles of desert in North-Western Morocco, and running a big cable back to the UK. The cable is the expensive bit, but once it’s in place you can expand the solar farm over hundreds of square miles.
It would probably need storage to be cheaper than it is now though, so the demand and supply curves over the day can be lined up.
Would it be wise to look much beyond Sabalenka (3/1), Swiatek (7/2), or Rybakina (9/2)? Possibly not. All three of those odds have reasons to be attractive bets and a case could be made for any of the three.
I’m beginning to think @Sandpit that you were correct about Emma Raducanu when you suggested that her US Open win would prove her to be a one-hit wonder. However, she has shown a bit of form in 2024 especially in the Billie Jean Cup and she will be playing back on grass.
At 33/1, widely available right now, I think she’s worth a flutter.
This is not a proposition that she is going to win Wimbledon. It’s a proposition that 33/1 is worth a casual bet.
She's a serious contender for Wimbledon and 33/1 is a fantastic price.
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
In other words, it is your "creative interpretation" rather than Green Party policies.
Green Party councils & councillors opposing solar farms:
Greens opposing solar farms in AONBs, nature reserves etc doesn't mean they oppose them everywhere. A handful of cherry-picked local examples doesn't mean it's their national policy.
The Green party is a coalition of people opposing various things. If you sum them together, they oppose nearly every form of development.
One thing I'm pondering is whether the 'crossover!' Coverage will provoke any panicked firming up of Tory inclined voters? I'm leaning towards no, but it will be interesting to see
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
A FOAF is moving his family farm away from pure farming - the extensive outbuilding quadrangle is now a small business centre. He is going into solar farming in a big way - has sheep grazing under and around the panels. The sheep keep the grass mowed and the chap looking after the sheep keeps an eye on the state of things. His guesstimate is that the panels don't reduce the number of sheep you can have on the land, noticeably.
What's not to like?
Veering slightly off topic, I have often wondered whether for solar farms, the economics would add up of putting solar on turntables - and using some of the power generated to aim the solar panel at the sun. It feels like this would be more efficient - you would make more in energy than you would lose in powering the movement. But perhaps the capital costs would be unrealistic.
Anything that sits outside needs as few moving parts as possible.
Hence Starlink removing the motors from the antenna - no longer required, since they filled out the constellation, costs money, goes wrong.
Turntables would either be really expensive or really unreliable, needing people to constantly be on site. Fine when it’s a massive telescope or radio dish, less so when you’re trying to make small money on solar generation.
I still like the bonkers idea of renting a few square miles of desert in North-Western Morocco, and running a big cable back to the UK. The cable is the expensive bit, but once it’s in place you can expand the solar farm over hundreds of square miles.
It would probably need storage to be cheaper than it is now though, so the demand and supply curves over the day can be lined up.
That’s the one. Dismissed as totally bonkers when first proposed, it could become economically viable much sooner than expected thanks to falling materials costs.
Would it be wise to look much beyond Sabalenka (3/1), Swiatek (7/2), or Rybakina (9/2)? Possibly not. All three of those odds have reasons to be attractive bets and a case could be made for any of the three.
I’m beginning to think @Sandpit that you were correct about Emma Raducanu when you suggested that her US Open win would prove her to be a one-hit wonder. However, she has shown a bit of form in 2024 especially in the Billie Jean Cup and she will be playing back on grass.
At 33/1, widely available right now, I think she’s worth a flutter.
This is not a proposition that she is going to win Wimbledon. It’s a proposition that 33/1 is worth a casual bet.
She's a serious contender for Wimbledon and 33/1 is a fantastic price.
Radacanu must be the most overhyped tennis player in history. The sponsorships she’s got are just crazy, I can’t believe there has been any ROI.
Greens at 9% and SNP 3% in Matt Goodwin's latest poll. Data tables now up on his website.
He has a massive gender split in party support. C-L-R of 14-47-12 among women and 23-33-21 among men.
As I've commented before, Reform is a blokeish party with little appeal to most women. I think, fortuitously, that puts a bit of a cap on the level they can reach.
The gender gap is smaller with other pollsters, but it still exists. Given that women line significantly longer than men, and so make up a disproportionately large fraction of the retired population, it's surprising to have such a gender split combined with the age split.
In YouGov, for example, Labour have a 21pp lead among women, and a 17pp lead among men, but the Tories do have a marginally higher share among women (18 v 17). The difference is explained by the larger Labour gender split (39 v 34) with Reform splitting the other way (14 v 24).
This is a potential challenge for any possible future New Farage Tory Party.
Are these weighted samples or are you subsampling? (If the latter please sound the Subsample Klaxon, Mr Password)...
They're all subsamples unless discovering stated otherwise.
Subsamples should always be marked as such. You should know that, being from Scotland!! Just ask @StuartDickson
Hmmm. Just been forwarded a letter from the police about safety and security during the campaign. Terrorism threat level is SUBSTANTIAL apparently.
Not sure I need to worry about Terrorism. Just angry Nats, of which there are quite a few commenting on my FB adverts with "get out of my town" and "fuck off back to England" etc
One odd comment on our village FB group. The village hall has been bedecked by Saltaires. Some wag tried to complain that the hall should not be used for political propaganda. Erm, its the Fitba, and thats the flag. Not remotely political...
Following your posts, I had a little flutter on you winning your seat at 66/1. So, could you please:
1. Stop posting on here and get out campaigning. I don't imagine there are many PBers in your constituency. 2. Pretend you're Scottish for a few weeks.
If I'm tapping away on here its as a distraction from the endless client project meetings I am in. Campaigning being done digitally, and physically outside work time. Still have two more trips south before polling day.
From what I can see of the campaigns: SNP: Candidate and teams out practically full time LD: Limited doorknocking in selected pockets to dip for mood. Which feeds into digital campaigning specifically targeted on issues. Big spend increase this week with another next week. Last week campaign in plan Con: Has put up pictures of a doorknocking session. But a lot of him being away elsewhere. The visible campaign of David Duguid has essentially stopped. Haven't seen leaflets or social media Lab: Candidate having a great time walking various parts of Aberdeenshire some of which may be in the constituency albeit without actual voters RefUK: No clue
My view is similar: SNP: busy LD: seen no activity myself but have seen your socials and you have talked about limited doorknocking on here Con: were busy, then the Chicken Coup came and printed material has stopped Lab: who? Ref: who?
Tell me where you live and I promise I will come knock on your door...
Interesting thing I hadn't factored into the planning - Sunday observance. Have been strongly advised not to go and canvass on a Sunday.
Would it be wise to look much beyond Sabalenka (3/1), Swiatek (7/2), or Rybakina (9/2)? Possibly not. All three of those odds have reasons to be attractive bets and a case could be made for any of the three.
I’m beginning to think @Sandpit that you were correct about Emma Raducanu when you suggested that her US Open win would prove her to be a one-hit wonder. However, she has shown a bit of form in 2024 especially in the Billie Jean Cup and she will be playing back on grass.
At 33/1, widely available right now, I think she’s worth a flutter.
This is not a proposition that she is going to win Wimbledon. It’s a proposition that 33/1 is worth a casual bet.
She's a serious contender for Wimbledon and 33/1 is a fantastic price.
Radacanu must be the most overhyped tennis player in history. The sponsorships she’s got are just crazy, I can’t believe there has been any ROI.
For sponsorships, she has the twin advantages of being recognisable (now the Williamses have gone, I don't think there's another female tennis player I'd recognise) and easy on the eye.
Sponsorship income equates to more than just overall ability.
Clarkson’s Farm show was rather enlightening about the views of Oxfordshire people, and their elected representatives, regarding farming and farmers.
They clearly think that food just appears at M&S or Waitrose, and don’t like the idea that their lovely countryside views might be spoiled by the activity.
You do know that Clarkson's Farm is entertainment and not a factual documentary...
The council meetings were actual meetings, and the opposition to everything the local farmers were trying to do to make money, was very real. He’s running a real farm, and his neighbours are running real farms too, constantly worried about how they can avoid bankruptcy, which Clarkson can avoid because he’s got the cameras following him around.
Yes there’s going to be some dramatisation and some storylines, but the fact that farmers across the UK have hailed the show as brilliant tells you it’s a fair reflection of that industry. Many farmers see themselves as custodians of the land, much of which has been with families for many generations, and see it as a vocation as much as a job.
I think farmers seeing themselves as “custodians of the land” can be a bit self-serving. In reality they are multi-million £ capital intensive businesses with a good line in PR.
But that doesn’t make local opposition to perfectly reasonable development any less insane. The world changes & we must change with it. Expecting farmers to preserve their land in aspic because local nimbys like the views is not reasonable.
The Tories own the immigration numbers and can’t run away from that . There’s never been a proper debate in the UK about immigration . The pros and cons .
The irony is of course that EU migration would have dropped regardless of the Brexit vote , that EU nationals are less likely to bring family members and are a net positive for the Treasury.
Many Brits refuse to do jobs in hospitality and agriculture and yet keep moaning about immigration .
If you want much lower migration then some business will go to the wall . If that’s what the Brits want then they should understand the trade offs .
The debate in the EU is different . Free movement isn’t the issue but illegal migration. The Brits have ended up with the worst of all worlds . They lost their FOM rights for bugger all and have seen immigration go up steeply .
I don't like the 'refuse to do' narrative. Most people can't do the low paid stuff because you can't afford to live on it. The wages are poor, the work unreliable/far from civilisation and the career prospects non-existent. Importing a new underclass will only exacerbate the shit conditions relative to professional jobs.
Would it be wise to look much beyond Sabalenka (3/1), Swiatek (7/2), or Rybakina (9/2)? Possibly not. All three of those odds have reasons to be attractive bets and a case could be made for any of the three.
I’m beginning to think @Sandpit that you were correct about Emma Raducanu when you suggested that her US Open win would prove her to be a one-hit wonder. However, she has shown a bit of form in 2024 especially in the Billie Jean Cup and she will be playing back on grass.
At 33/1, widely available right now, I think she’s worth a flutter.
This is not a proposition that she is going to win Wimbledon. It’s a proposition that 33/1 is worth a casual bet.
She's a serious contender for Wimbledon and 33/1 is a fantastic price.
Radacanu must be the most overhyped tennis player in history. The sponsorships she’s got are just crazy, I can’t believe there has been any ROI.
For sponsorships, she has the twin advantages of being recognisable (now the Williamses have gone, I don't think there's another female tennis player I'd recognise) and easy on the eye.
Sponsorship income equates to more than just overall ability.
Yes but she only got the sponsorships after winning. She’s been on the downhill ever since. My point is that they backed her way too early.
One thing I'm pondering is whether the 'crossover!' Coverage will provoke any panicked firming up of Tory inclined voters? I'm leaning towards no, but it will be interesting to see
It really could go either way. Either Tories who have been saying reform to pollsters to try and kick Cons into more action suddenly think the message is given and return to the fold or they suddenly think that maybe if lots of people also like reform then they aren’t so bad.
The media have a key roll to play in how it breaks. This morning the bbc radio news was very much saying “Farage has said he is the best alternative to Labour as they beat the Tories in a poll yesterday”. Now the story could equally have been “the Tories have said they are still the best chance to beat Labour after Reform came above them in one of four polls yesterday.
The first version is painting a picture that is a close up of a situation that changes the narrative massively compared to the zoomed out bigger picture of the second spin.
There are still a couple of weeks where the Reform manifesto could be “great” or be absolutely pulverised - it’s going to potentially be in the interests of Labour too to attack them soon. There is also the chance that a lot of skeletons can appear from Reform candidates cupboards (and of course other parties) which might have local push we don’t see on a national level.
They seem to be almost completely out of air defence systems, and those they do have, mostly S300 family, are supposed to be used against enemy bombers and ICBMs, and are totally unsuited to defending smaller airborne threats. Several of the systems themselves have been blown up by HIMARS and ATACMS.
Russian bloggers are claiming the Ukrainian drones are virtually invisible - until they land. Or maybe the head of air defence has many online personae...
Russia is certainly in a dilemma. Crimea is now almost as useless for basing aircraft as it is for surface vessels. The S-300 and S-400 systems are being knocked off as target practice by the Ukrainians. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth a time (although good luck getting any foreign power to pay that, Russia...). Meanwhile, tens of thousands of troops gloomily based there wait for the visiting HIMARS. They COULD be out helping the push towards Kharkiv - but that would leave Crimea open to an assault. Losing Crimea would be terminal to Putin. But keeping it is costing him too - the daily tally of manpower and material of lost under-resourced troops in the north and east is unsustainable.
Putin's strategy of going for broke in the expectation that Ukraine and its backers would have to fold has not worked. Forward momentum to take a village here, a field there has slowed to a snail's pace; they are now more likely to lose hundreds of men and the handful of vehicles they can scrape together to retake acreage they have recently relinquished, rather than make a push forwards. Meanwhile, scarce air defence is getting scarcer. Huge swathes of Russia have nothing to stop drones travelling 1,000 km or more to damage refining plants or manufacturing plant.
It is an absolute mess for Russia. Serves them right!
There is a fuck of a lot of pontificating on this site from people who are sat at their keyboards and not out knocking on doors, meeting the voters.
So who on here has been pounding the pavements? Own up...
And tell us if your experience matches the polls.
Labour are gonna win bigly. But this is not a strong vote for them. Noone is admitting voting Tory, either acting coyly or saying they won' bother.
So I reckon if Reform learn to campaign and get a leading personality who isn't as creepy as Farage then I can see a lot of these Labour gains going Reform in 2028/2029.
Speaking to journalists on Friday, Rishi Sunak defended Biden: "From what I remember, he went to go and shake all their hands. As far as I’m aware, he went over to talk to some of the the parachutes jumpers to say thank you or hello”
Whomp whomp, Leon gets it wrong again. Trying to pretend that Biden has dementia just makes you look stupid.
Yeah, Biden is fine. You just gotta look at Biden and you know, wow, guy on top of his brief, never rambles in speeches, fit as a fiddle, could pass for 19, like a younger more virile JFK, also he's totally normal, I mean look at this
I genuinly don't understand PB lefties who pretend Biden is fine. Are they worried that if they admit the screamingly obviouS - Biden has serious cognitive decline - it somehow helps Trump? Do they think American media pundits scan PB looking for clues as to the health of their POTUS candidates, and if HorseBatteryWotsit says OK Biden is a senile old coot, then the election is lost?
FWIW I think Trump is ALSO showing major signs of losing it. He rambles much more, his walk and speech are hesitant, his jokes are way less funny. THEY ARE BOTH FAR TOO OLD FOR THE JOB
Green Party: We have a housing crisis! Voters: So you’ll build lots of houses? Green Party: If you elect us we’ll build even fewer houses. Voters: ?!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We must do something! Voters: So you’ll build lots of green power stations then? Green Party: We’re going to cancel nuclear, onshore wind is bad because ruins people’s views & we’re not going to build the power lines to enable offshore wind for the same reason. Oh, and solar is bad too. Voters: ??!!
Green Party: There’s a climate crisis! We will put a carbon tax on everything. Voters: So you’ll put up the tax on petrol / diesel then? Green Party: Our carbon tax will cut the tax on petrol & diesel. Vote for us! Voters: ?????
These people are not serious.
Do you have a link for those?
I wouldn't support Greens nationally, because their beliefs are too dogmatic for me - but some of that does not look like Green policy, perhaps more like a creative interpretation thereof.
Naturally you have to read between the lines a little. The carbon tax they quote works out at less than current taxes on petrol / diesel on the forecourt. The house building rate of < 150k / year is in there too. The power generation section contains the gems about cutting nuclear & the claim that they will provide for grid transfer via off-shore power cables. These are wildly more expensive, less efficient & less reliable than an on-shore long distance power grid. Why aren’t they just building out an on-shore power grid? Well, the manifesto doesn’t say, but it’s because their members apparently don’t like how overground power cables look. Spoils their nice views I believe.
The solar thing is from the reality that the “Greens” have opposed solar farms almost everywhere, and are apparently convinced that rooftop solar is the only valid solar. So instead of building out as much solar as possible, as fast as possible to avert a climate catastrophe they are in favour of slowly building out the most expensive form of solar power known to man. (Not that there’s anything wrong with rooftop solar: it’s great, but on-ground solar on the poorer grades of farmland outperforms it on every metric. Well, except whether nimbys like it I guess?)
The Greens have become even more nimbyish than any other party which, given that they keep banging on about the climate crisis at every opportunity, is the height of hypocrisy imo.
In other words, it is your "creative interpretation" rather than Green Party policies.
Green Party councils & councillors opposing solar farms:
Greens opposing solar farms in AONBs, nature reserves etc doesn't mean they oppose them everywhere. A handful of cherry-picked local examples doesn't mean it's their national policy.
The Green party is a coalition of people opposing various things. If you sum them together, they oppose nearly every form of development.
That's not really true, although their relative success in some rural, typically quite conservative, areas in local elections is undoubtedly at least part to a NIMBYish approach. And there has been a bit of Corbynista infiltration in recent years. I thought Viewcode's excellent Solarpunk article nicely articulated the phiolosophy behind many long-term greens.
Comments
I’m sure you’re telling the truth and your friend’s daughter found a way, but shall we inject some facts:
https://www.medschools.ac.uk/media/2877/entry-requirements-document-2022-digital.pdf
Page 12 - straight As required. But there are interviews and “broadening participation” stuff which probably helped her.
Overall though - straight As.
What's not to like?
Are there millions waiting to come? If we advertised everywhere in every country a free UK visa? Perhaps. Probably. But today, we are seeing substantially only those we want to come. It's up to us. We don't have free borders (anymore).
Suggesting that somehow because the Conservatives hold a seat in SE London all the 20% poll ratings are wrong is just drivel, pure and simple. It's desperate straw clutching.
Susan Hall and Andy Street both polled much better than the national poll numbers suggested - they both still lost. In the case of Hall, her numbers didn't reflect down to the GLA constituencies.
There will be popular local Conservatives who can stand against the tide in local elections and by elections - no one is denying it and indeed their ability to disassociate themselves from the national trend works to their advantage (it happens in all parties by the way) but to extrapolate that nationally is just plain wrong.
People are talking about tax alright. How much they are paying under the Tories and how little they are getting back for it. And how the Tories are lying to their face about it. Starmer doesn't need to defend or explain as the Tories have draw fire away from them.
Imagine the alternate strategy. Instead of Bad Penny ranting until told to shut up on the debate stage about fantasy Labour taxes, we have measured Penny. Sorry that taxes had to go up so much - Ukraine and Covid, Ukraine and Covid - but they do now have a plan to start reducing the pain. But Labour think you should keep paying more.
People might be paying attention. But as it is, nobody is.
In YouGov, for example, Labour have a 21pp lead among women, and a 17pp lead among men, but the Tories do have a marginally higher share among women (18 v 17). The difference is explained by the larger Labour gender split (39 v 34) with Reform splitting the other way (14 v 24).
This is a potential challenge for any possible future New Farage Tory Party.
And the No.1 issue they all mention? Immigration. And they are on top of their facts about net migration numbers too.
@TOPPING says it doesn't matter to him but FUCK ME, it really does to these people and they are changing this election.
Do you think Brexit happened because of the Far Right? No. They whipped up enough of the right, and some on the left, to the cause. The rest is history.
Being complacent like the tories have been on this especially Sunak is now part of their undoing. He has bleated on about boat crossings but he has presided over the greatest level of net migration this country has EVER seen.
NET MIGRATION:
745,000 in 2022
685,000 in 2023
RECORD LEVELS
FFS this IS an issue like it or not. Bang out of order to take a pop at hethener when she was illustrating why this is a voter issue RIGHT NOW
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67506641
https://www.statista.com/statistics/283287/net-migration-figures-of-the-united-kingdom-y-on-y/
"Roger,
I’m about to take the stage and debate Penny Mordaunt, Nigel Farage and co.
Today of all days, when we released our manifesto, I'm proud to be able to take the stage and represent our party to deliver our message of change. The truth is, everyone I'm up against tonight wants to see Labour falter. But I’m well up for it and honestly, I’m determined to do you proud.
I’m going to give it my all, but it would mean a lot to me to know that you are standing with me. Please will you donate using my link below at:
www.labour.org.uk/stand_with_angela
Thank you. It means a lot.
Let's go!
- Angela 🌹"
Well this is why Reform are on the march like it or not
You will cause some PBers difficulty, Roger.
Osborne ( and you will recall I'm not a fan ) had the good fortune to say he didn't know what he would find, which at the time of the GFC passed muster. Starmer and Reeves have painted themselves in to a corner saying no tax rises, everything is costed we know what we're doing etc.
Their manifesto had nothing much in it to promote growth despite the slogans.
I think theyre heading to overpromising and delivering little.
May just be a coincidence, ofcourse ;,)
Not sure I need to worry about Terrorism. Just angry Nats, of which there are quite a few commenting on my FB adverts with "get out of my town" and "fuck off back to England" etc
One odd comment on our village FB group. The village hall has been bedecked by Saltaires. Some wag tried to complain that the hall should not be used for political propaganda. Erm, its the Fitba, and thats the flag. Not remotely political...
They clearly think that food just appears at M&S or Waitrose, and don’t like the idea that their lovely countryside views might be spoiled by the activity.
https://www.gov.uk/terrorism-national-emergency
Have you gathered that I /really/ don’t like the Greens yet?
Insofar as you can take anything a politician ever says for granted, the insistence that we are not going back to austerity implies higher taxes, so Reeves won't be Osborne Mk.II. But can we be sure of this? No.
Indeed recently the University wanted to increase our grade requirements so we didn't need to look at so many applicants, but the panel was against. We want wider participation and academic assessment is only part of what we do at interview.
From time to time we do look at the interview scores and compare to in course performance to fine tune our assessments, so have a pretty good feedback system.
No, literally.
And these were self proclaimed LibDems/Greens.
So, could you please:
1. Stop posting on here and get out campaigning. I don't imagine there are many PBers in your constituency.
2. Pretend you're Scottish for a few weeks.
Barring something blackswannish now, I think we're sticking with where we're at. IMVHO polls overstate REF, understate CON in the actual event. Will probably end up something like:
Lab 38%
Con 26%
Ref 12%
LD 11% (but efficient)
Green 5%
SNP 3%
Others 5%
ElCalc-ing, that translates to:
Lab 386
Con 172
Ref 3
LD 41
Grn 2
SNP 21
PC 4
NI: 18
Other 3
Hence Starlink removing the motors from the antenna - no longer required, since they filled out the constellation, costs money, goes wrong.
I get the impression, but do not know, that some online bookmakers will suspend a market automatically if a series of bets unbalances a book, until their lone politics trader turns up to work the next day. I know I've often gone to place a bet in the wee small hours and cannot find the market on, say, Hills, whereas Bet365 are more reliable.
https://media.scotslanguage.com/library/document/RGU_Doric_Dictionary.pdf
I saw another idea at one point where they put a moving lens in front of each cell, which meant the cells could be much smaller and super efficient.
But as already noted, moving parts are probably outweighed by just having more cells over a larger area.
https://www.nrel.gov/csp/facility-hfsf.html#:~:text=The solar furnace can quickly,up to 3,000°C.
But for common or garden sites, I'm not sure it makes much difference - the sun will be at low incidences in the earlyu morning and late evening so those orientations aren't much use anyway, and a general southward facing azimuth and compromise altitude will get you a lot for no extra capital than a fixed orientation.
Generally the other door knockers said things were really positive but kinda suspect they'd say that anyway!
I still like the bonkers idea of renting a few square miles of desert in North-Western Morocco, and running a big cable back to the UK. The cable is the expensive bit, but once it’s in place you can expand the solar farm over hundreds of square miles.
It would probably need storage to be cheaper than it is now though, so the demand and supply curves over the day can be lined up.
Don't mistake one well-organised campaign group for an accurate survey of public opinion. You do know that Clarkson's Farm is entertainment and not a factual documentary...
From what I can see of the campaigns:
SNP: Candidate and teams out practically full time
LD: Limited doorknocking in selected pockets to dip for mood. Which feeds into digital campaigning specifically targeted on issues. Big spend increase this week with another next week. Last week campaign in plan
Con: Has put up pictures of a doorknocking session. But a lot of him being away elsewhere. The visible campaign of David Duguid has essentially stopped. Haven't seen leaflets or social media
Lab: Candidate having a great time walking various parts of Aberdeenshire some of which may be in the constituency albeit without actual voters
RefUK: No clue
Also shadows from neighbouring solar panels as they turn.
The universal feeling is we have to get rid of the Tories. No-one mentions policies. Few mention personalities. It's just get the fing Tories out.
But there are Tories out there. A few (very few) say "we are a Tory household. We've always voted Conservative and will continue to do so". Some say "I've always voted Conservative but I'm really upset with them and I don't know what to do." "Then vote for us" say I "and send them a message". "I will" they say and I walk away with a smile.
I am Champions League
Now, BETTING POST: WIMBLEDON LADIES’ SINGLES CHAMPIONSHIP
Would it be wise to look much beyond Sabalenka (3/1), Swiatek (7/2), or Rybakina (9/2)? Possibly not. All three of those odds have reasons to be attractive bets and a case could be made for any of the three.
I’m beginning to think @Sandpit that you were correct about Emma Raducanu when you suggested that her US Open win would prove her to be a one-hit wonder. However, she has shown a bit of form in 2024 especially in the Billie Jean Cup and she will be playing back on grass.
At 33/1, widely available right now, I think she’s worth a flutter.
This is not a proposition that she is going to win Wimbledon. It’s a proposition that 33/1 is worth a casual bet.
And social mixing was right out.
I got complaints because I drank in a "local" pub.
Yet people would bang on about how they were "liberal". I think they hadn't quite worked out that being liberal doesn't mean kicking the revolting peasants.
While I wasn't there at the time, I understand that the locals housing estate was solidly BREXIT, the nice stone bits full of the incomers, Remainer. The story of BREXIT in a nutshell.
It wouldn’t happen in front of Starmer.
Lots of Tory MPs being investigated for no specified reason isn’t helping the Tory brand much either.
Three weeks from now. 👍
There are a number of proposals to create a Europe wide grid (and beyond).
It’s always the danger in an echo chamber. Someone comes along with an alternate reality and they feel threatened and get personally abusive, aggressive even.
I’ll leave it there.
I am Champions League
The visceral, reactive hatred of Reform just adds to their appeal and will propel them forward.
Yes there’s going to be some dramatisation and some storylines, but the fact that farmers across the UK have hailed the show as brilliant tells you it’s a fair reflection of that industry. Many farmers see themselves as custodians of the land, much of which has been with families for many generations, and see it as a vocation as much as a job.
@robpowellnews
The attack is that Labour aren’t ruling out several tax rises.
The docs handed out to journalists here helpfully show that even under the Tories the tax burden would be higher in 2028/29 than now
https://x.com/robpowellnews/status/1801561133318312416
That being said, diversification and specialisation are the classic way to save farms.
https://x.com/MrHarryCole/status/1801564183550382442
Whomp whomp, Leon gets it wrong again. Trying to pretend that Biden has dementia just makes you look stupid.
The irony is of course that EU migration would have dropped regardless of the Brexit vote , that EU nationals are less likely to bring family members and are a net positive for the Treasury.
Many Brits refuse to do jobs in hospitality and agriculture and yet keep moaning about immigration .
If you want much lower migration then some business will go to the wall . If that’s what the Brits want then they should understand the trade offs .
The debate in the EU is different . Free movement isn’t the issue but illegal migration. The Brits have ended up with the worst of all worlds . They lost their FOM rights for bugger all and have seen immigration go up steeply .
https://www.stags.co.uk/articles/proposed-3800km-sub-sea-cable-to-connect-morocco-with-north-devon
Interesting thing I hadn't factored into the planning - Sunday observance. Have been strongly advised not to go and canvass on a Sunday.
It wasn't a new poll in and of itself.
Sponsorship income equates to more than just overall ability.
But that doesn’t make local opposition to perfectly reasonable development any less insane. The world changes & we must change with it. Expecting farmers to preserve their land in aspic because local nimbys like the views is not reasonable.
The media have a key roll to play in how it breaks. This morning the bbc radio news was very much saying “Farage has said he is the best alternative to Labour as they beat the Tories in a poll yesterday”. Now the story could equally have been “the Tories have said they are still the best chance to beat Labour after Reform came above them in one of four polls yesterday.
The first version is painting a picture that is a close up of a situation that changes the narrative massively compared to the zoomed out bigger picture of the second spin.
There are still a couple of weeks where the Reform manifesto could be “great” or be absolutely pulverised - it’s going to potentially be in the interests of Labour too to attack them soon. There is also the chance that a lot of skeletons can appear from Reform candidates cupboards (and of course other parties) which might have local push we don’t see on a national level.
Russia is certainly in a dilemma. Crimea is now almost as useless for basing aircraft as it is for surface vessels. The S-300 and S-400 systems are being knocked off as target practice by the Ukrainians. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth a time (although good luck getting any foreign power to pay that, Russia...). Meanwhile, tens of thousands of troops gloomily based there wait for the visiting HIMARS. They COULD be out helping the push towards Kharkiv - but that would leave Crimea open to an assault. Losing Crimea would be terminal to Putin. But keeping it is costing him too - the daily tally of manpower and material of lost under-resourced troops in the north and east is unsustainable.
Putin's strategy of going for broke in the expectation that Ukraine and its backers would have to fold has not worked. Forward momentum to take a village here, a field there has slowed to a snail's pace; they are now more likely to lose hundreds of men and the handful of vehicles they can scrape together to retake acreage they have recently relinquished, rather than make a push forwards. Meanwhile, scarce air defence is getting scarcer. Huge swathes of Russia have nothing to stop drones travelling 1,000 km or more to damage refining plants or manufacturing plant.
It is an absolute mess for Russia. Serves them right!
So I reckon if Reform learn to campaign and get a leading personality who isn't as creepy as Farage then I can see a lot of these Labour gains going Reform in 2028/2029.
https://x.com/MattWallace888/status/1800770476756836431
I genuinly don't understand PB lefties who pretend Biden is fine. Are they worried that if they admit the screamingly obviouS - Biden has serious cognitive decline - it somehow helps Trump? Do they think American media pundits scan PB looking for clues as to the health of their POTUS candidates, and if HorseBatteryWotsit says OK Biden is a senile old coot, then the election is lost?
FWIW I think Trump is ALSO showing major signs of losing it. He rambles much more, his walk and speech are hesitant, his jokes are way less funny. THEY ARE BOTH FAR TOO OLD FOR THE JOB