Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
The conventional wisdom was that poor countries like China and India would have to produce absolutely loads of carbon before they could get rich and clean like us. This was essentially apocalyptic for the climate, and my lecturers were talking like Preppers - store baked beans and build houses on top of mountains.
That's happening to an extent as their population and economy explodes. However, they are doing significantly better than expected which is great source of happiness for everyone in the 20s and 30s. By the time Africa gets to this stage, solar will be so cheap they can transition to a developed economy with very little increase in emissions at all. Yaaas!
Well indeed, the solution to climate issues is science and technology, not cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Cutting consumption does absolutely nothing to improve the planet, as the rest of the planet intends to increase consumption not decrease it.
The way to solve climate problems is by ensuring we invest in clean consumption. Do so and you can have as much consumption as you like without hurting the planet (since anything times zero equals zero).
We can lead the way by investing in, developing and supporting clean technologies and the rest of the world will follow on that.
The madness of watermelon lunatics who pretend to be green but really just want to hurt people's consumption will do nothing for the environment.
Me and other Greens have been arguing for Britain to invest in new technology for decades, and people have told us we shouldn't do anything until China does.
Now China has done it and it's pretty much too late for Britain to take a lead on any of the relevant technology, because Britain let other countries get there first.
Just in the last year or two the opportunity to take a lead on small modular nuclear reactors has slipped through Britain's fingers. Unless Labour manage to dramatically turn this around, Britain will be paying other countries for the green energy technology they could have profited from.
So don't lecture me about green watermelons, thank you very much.
I thought the Greens opposed nuclear ?
Green party policy is anti-nuclear. Plenty of prominent Greens have been in favour. Some Greens have been equivocal, pointing out that nuclear is just too slow to build - something the small modular reactors might be better at.
I've heard Greens especially opposing the small modular reactors because it will be hard to stop them.
Imagine a small, safe, and cheap source of huge amounts of energy that could be run out of a production line, generating both clean power for the domestic market and £billions in exports. What a horrible problem to have, imagine how much economic growth could be driven by such technology.
And then you woke up.
And yet that is what Rolls Royce are working on right now.
People are working on all sorts of things. This does not mean they are automatically going to solve all our problems or even have much chance of becoming commercially practicable within a useful time frame.
There is an urgent need to decarbonise our electricity production, and we already know how to do it: through a combination of wind, solar, hydroelectric and traditional nuclear generation combined with storage and demand management. These are what we need to focus on. We simply don't have time left to rely on the pie-in-the-sky stuff.
And we're already doing it.
The UK has already eliminated coal.
The UK is well down the path to eliminating gas too now.
It'll take time to finish the job, and we need to invest especially in pylons and have the rollout of batteries/EVs continue (which are becoming cheaper year on year) but we're doing the right thing already and need to just keep calm and carry on with it.
And encourage the likes of China to belatedly catch up with us. Which they're not doing yet.
China is not only catching up; China currently has the pedal to the metal and and is just about to shoot past us. The country has industrialised in about a quarter the time taken by the UK and will very soon overtake on decarbonisation. We are complacent at our peril.
That is completely untrue. China is miles behind us and nowhere near decarbonising at the same rate as us.
They're still getting most of their energy from coal. We are getting the overwhelming majority of our energy from zero-carbon sources already.
The amount of solar power being installed in China at the moment is insane. The only reason they are using Coal at the moment is because China operates on a use whatever they can basis so is happy to use Coal if it's cheaper than the other options.
I suspect coal will disappear fairly quickly as more and more solar gets installed.
That's a good thing and is them catching up with what we did a decade ago.
Its not them overtaking us.
I welcome them catching up with us on this. Its a good thing.
The difference is all the construction they are doing and we are not. All those nasty new houses disfiguring the Chinese landscape.
A compulsory facial recognition database with ANPR cameras replaced with facial recognition cameras and a year inside for covering your face while driving would soon sort it.
Won't go down well in Guardian Towers though.
As ever, the question is what privacy we are willing to sacrifice for the greater good and will the other uses such a system might be put to by the government and its agencies be worse than allowing a small part of society to cause misery.to others.
Blair passed proceeds of crime legislation to allow the state to seize the receipts of drug dealing and terrorism. What we got was local councils bankrupting residents who pruned a protected tree without permission based on the imputed increased value of their house as a result of the tree no longer causing a light blocking nuisance.
Do you have a linky for that last claim?
Did @MrBedfordshire back this claim up, of someone pruning a TPO Tree being bankrupted after being pursued under Proceeds of Crime law?
I'd really like to see it, as I have never seen POCA used wrt TPO trees, and it is in my area of interest. Getting permission to prune is not difficult, and is free, and we treat damaging TPO trees as an attack on the system of maintaining the public environment, which is what it is.
The closest I am aware of was a millionaire scrote on Sandbanks who added £40k to the value of his property by destroying two TPO trees.
He got off lightly: all he got done for was £2700 fine, £15500 court costs, and the £40k profits he had made by illegally destroying the trees. That fine could have been £25k.
"Proceeds of Crime orders, such as the confiscation of property, are normally associated with seizing money from organised criminals. If a person is convicted from having profited from a crime, those funds can be confiscated by the court. However, these powers are increasingly being used by authorities in broader and ever more innovative ways. The result, in addition to relatively nominal fines, is that courts have begun imposing significant – and some would argue punitive – confiscation orders.
In this case the council appointed surveyors to determine the increase in the property’s value following the cutting down of the protected tree. In the opinion of the council’s experts, Wilson’s home increased in value by around £21,000."
So they’re using laws intended for drug dealers, terrorists, and people traffickers, to financially ruin someone who cuts down a protected tree on their own land?
He didn't even cut them down, just gave them a significant pruning. They will grow back.
These sorts of powers allow jumped up power crazed ideologically rugid c**ts in councils to lord it over residents like Norman Barons and hold them in just as much contempt.
TBF the original claim made on the thread was around making him bankrupt.
AFAICS he hasn't been ruined. He's just lost his illegal profits.
If he wants to prune protected trees, a free, not at all difficult, system exists for him to use. He thought he was above the law and could do whatever he wanted.
Personally I'd say that the landowner destroying public benefit is the one behaving like a Nortman Baron.
Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
I think it is more the case that they have increased power consumption so much that coal is maxed out and the only way to get the extra was solar
You would be completely wrong in thinking that.
The capacity utilisation figures for their existing coal (and gas) plants tell a different story. Power generated from both types of fossil fuel plants fell in absolute terms on the most recent set of figures - as overall power consumption grew.
"The country [China] added 47.4 Gigawatts (GW) of new coal power in 2023, more than double the amount added by the rest of the world combined"
@benhabib6 I have just been informed by Nigel Farage that Richard Tice is taking over as deputy leader of the party. Consequently I no longer hold that position.
I am considering my position more generally in light of this change.
I have long held concerns about the control of the party and the decision making processes.
I will reflect on all of this.
The key for me is that Reform UK stays true to the promises made to the British people. The movement we have created does not belong to us, it belongs to the people. We are obliged and indebted to the British people.
Owen Jones @OwenJones84 · 2h Keir Starmer rightly denounces the killing of Ukrainian children by the Russian army as "the most depraved of actions."
He has said no such thing about Israel's mass slaughter of Palestinian children.
There's a word for this double standard. It is "racism".
Except he has, repeatedly, condemned the killing of Palestinian children.
Indeed but even if he hadn't it wouldn't by default make it racist. Critics of Starmer need to try much, much harder. Or you know, wait and see if he is actually any use and then decide.
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
Definitely lucky this time. 0. Didn't get drawn into one of the hardest groups. 1. A bit lucky to finish top of the group, if Denmark had managed so score a goal against Serbia England would have come second. 1-0, 1-1, 0-0 in a fairly weak group is mediocre at best. England would have faced Germany, and if they'd managed to get through (doubtful), Spain in the quarters. 2. If Germany hadn't equalised in the last minute against Switzerland, England would have probably had to face Germany in the quarter finals. 3. If France had managed to beat Poland, it could have been France in the semis. 4. If Portugal had bothered not to lose against Georgia it would have been the Netherlands rather than Slovakia in the 8th-finals.
Then they were going out against Slovakia until injury time, only got past Switzerland on penalties, and benefited from a soft penalty decision against the Netherlands.
Hard to imagine how England could have had more luck to get to the finals, tbh. Compare to Spain, who were in a group with Italy and Croatia, won all their games, and had to beat Germany and France to get to the finals. Maybe a bit lucky they didn't get a soft penalty given against them for handball vs Germany, but that's it.
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
Definitely lucky this time. 0. Didn't get drawn into one of the hardest groups. 1. A bit lucky to finish top of the group, if Denmark had managed so score a goal against Serbia England would have come second. 1-0, 1-1, 0-0 in a fairly weak group is mediocre at best. England would have faced Germany, and if they'd managed to get through (doubtful), Spain in the quarters. 2. If Germany hadn't equalised in the last minute against Switzerland, England would have probably had to face Germany in the quarter finals. 3. If France had managed to beat Poland, it could have been France in the semis. 4. If Portugal had bothered not to lose against Georgia it would have been the Netherlands rather than Slovakia in the 8th-finals.
Then they were going out against Slovakia until injury time, only got past Switzerland on penalties, and benefited from a soft penalty decision against the Netherlands.
Hard to imagine how England could have had more luck to get to the finals, tbh. Compare to Spain, who were in a group with Italy and Croatia, won all their games, and had to beat Germany and France to get to the finals. Maybe a bit lucky they didn't get a soft penalty given against them for handball vs Germany, but that's it.
Spain are the standout side for sure. But pick any other finalist, France, Germany, Portugal, Netherlands, Swiss they could play and I can write another script to explain why they had luck on their side. Its the nature of international tournament football.
A compulsory facial recognition database with ANPR cameras replaced with facial recognition cameras and a year inside for covering your face while driving would soon sort it.
Won't go down well in Guardian Towers though.
As ever, the question is what privacy we are willing to sacrifice for the greater good and will the other uses such a system might be put to by the government and its agencies be worse than allowing a small part of society to cause misery.to others.
Blair passed proceeds of crime legislation to allow the state to seize the receipts of drug dealing and terrorism. What we got was local councils bankrupting residents who pruned a protected tree without permission based on the imputed increased value of their house as a result of the tree no longer causing a light blocking nuisance.
Do you have a linky for that last claim?
Did @MrBedfordshire back this claim up, of someone pruning a TPO Tree being bankrupted after being pursued under Proceeds of Crime law?
I'd really like to see it, as I have never seen POCA used wrt TPO trees, and it is in my area of interest. Getting permission to prune is not difficult, and is free, and we treat damaging TPO trees as an attack on the system of maintaining the public environment, which is what it is.
The closest I am aware of was a millionaire scrote on Sandbanks who added £40k to the value of his property by destroying two TPO trees.
He got off lightly: all he got done for was £2700 fine, £15500 court costs, and the £40k profits he had made by illegally destroying the trees. That fine could have been £25k.
"Proceeds of Crime orders, such as the confiscation of property, are normally associated with seizing money from organised criminals. If a person is convicted from having profited from a crime, those funds can be confiscated by the court. However, these powers are increasingly being used by authorities in broader and ever more innovative ways. The result, in addition to relatively nominal fines, is that courts have begun imposing significant – and some would argue punitive – confiscation orders.
In this case the council appointed surveyors to determine the increase in the property’s value following the cutting down of the protected tree. In the opinion of the council’s experts, Wilson’s home increased in value by around £21,000."
So they’re using laws intended for drug dealers, terrorists, and people traffickers, to financially ruin someone who cuts down a protected tree on their own land?
He didn't even cut them down, just gave them a significant pruning. They will grow back.
These sorts of powers allow jumped up power crazed ideologically rugid c**ts in councils to lord it over residents like Norman Barons and hold them in just as much contempt.
TBF the original claim made on the thread was around making him bankrupt.
AFAICS he hasn't been ruined. He's just lost his illegal profits.
If he wants to prune protected trees, a free, not at all difficult, system exists for him to use. He thought he was above the law and could do whatever he wanted.
Personally I'd say that the landowner destroying public benefit is the one behaving like a Nortman Baron.
I think that is bordering on pedantry. Anyone with a half decent pension pot and house is a millionaire these days.
That dosent mean they have tens of thousands spare because they are given a bill of tens of thousands based on an imputed rise in value of their property.
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
Definitely lucky this time. 0. Didn't get drawn into one of the hardest groups. 1. A bit lucky to finish top of the group, if Denmark had managed so score a goal against Serbia England would have come second. 1-0, 1-1, 0-0 in a fairly weak group is mediocre at best. England would have faced Germany, and if they'd managed to get through (doubtful), Spain in the quarters. 2. If Germany hadn't equalised in the last minute against Switzerland, England would have probably had to face Germany in the quarter finals. 3. If France had managed to beat Poland, it could have been France in the semis. 4. If Portugal had bothered not to lose against Georgia it would have been the Netherlands rather than Slovakia in the 8th-finals.
Then they were going out against Slovakia until injury time, only got past Switzerland on penalties, and benefited from a soft penalty decision against the Netherlands.
Hard to imagine how England could have had more luck to get to the finals, tbh. Compare to Spain, who were in a group with Italy and Croatia, won all their games, and had to beat Germany and France to get to the finals. Maybe a bit lucky they didn't get a soft penalty given against them for handball vs Germany, but that's it.
Route to the final (world ranking):
Spain Georgia (74) then Germany (16) then France (2) England Slovakia (45) then Switzerland (19) then Netherlands (7)
Not that different, to be honest.
England often struggle against sides that are set up to not concede (see the first five games of the tournament). No surprise that against a side who sought to attack them, they look to be playing better. A lot of England's threat comes from turnover plays and breaking quickly. That doesn't happen so much if the opponents are playing very low risk football. Our best performance was last night. No coincidence.
Just watching Le Tour one of the teams (TotalEnergies) had 11 of their bikes stolen overnight!
Aren't they going to be a bit tricky to sell? Who wants to buy a ultra specialised bike made for people who have like 5% body fat and gearing for people who can push 600 watts with ease.....
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
Irrelevant. Had he not done this he could have blamed the Tories for power cuts. Labour will have to own it now.
That's mad.
The decision is stupid, will hurt out balance of trade and help enrich the Putins and Ayatollahs and Mullahs of this world, while doing nothing to aid the environment whatsoever.
But its got absolutely jack all to do with power cuts, or the risk of them.
A compulsory facial recognition database with ANPR cameras replaced with facial recognition cameras and a year inside for covering your face while driving would soon sort it.
Won't go down well in Guardian Towers though.
As ever, the question is what privacy we are willing to sacrifice for the greater good and will the other uses such a system might be put to by the government and its agencies be worse than allowing a small part of society to cause misery.to others.
Blair passed proceeds of crime legislation to allow the state to seize the receipts of drug dealing and terrorism. What we got was local councils bankrupting residents who pruned a protected tree without permission based on the imputed increased value of their house as a result of the tree no longer causing a light blocking nuisance.
Do you have a linky for that last claim?
Did @MrBedfordshire back this claim up, of someone pruning a TPO Tree being bankrupted after being pursued under Proceeds of Crime law?
I'd really like to see it, as I have never seen POCA used wrt TPO trees, and it is in my area of interest. Getting permission to prune is not difficult, and is free, and we treat damaging TPO trees as an attack on the system of maintaining the public environment, which is what it is.
The closest I am aware of was a millionaire scrote on Sandbanks who added £40k to the value of his property by destroying two TPO trees.
He got off lightly: all he got done for was £2700 fine, £15500 court costs, and the £40k profits he had made by illegally destroying the trees. That fine could have been £25k.
"Proceeds of Crime orders, such as the confiscation of property, are normally associated with seizing money from organised criminals. If a person is convicted from having profited from a crime, those funds can be confiscated by the court. However, these powers are increasingly being used by authorities in broader and ever more innovative ways. The result, in addition to relatively nominal fines, is that courts have begun imposing significant – and some would argue punitive – confiscation orders.
In this case the council appointed surveyors to determine the increase in the property’s value following the cutting down of the protected tree. In the opinion of the council’s experts, Wilson’s home increased in value by around £21,000."
So they’re using laws intended for drug dealers, terrorists, and people traffickers, to financially ruin someone who cuts down a protected tree on their own land?
He didn't even cut them down, just gave them a significant pruning. They will grow back.
These sorts of powers allow jumped up power crazed ideologically rugid c**ts in councils to lord it over residents like Norman Barons and hold them in just as much contempt.
TBF the original claim made on the thread was around making him bankrupt.
AFAICS he hasn't been ruined. He's just lost his illegal profits.
If he wants to prune protected trees, a free, not at all difficult, system exists for him to use. He thought he was above the law and could do whatever he wanted.
Personally I'd say that the landowner destroying public benefit is the one behaving like a Nortman Baron.
I think that is bordering on pedantry. Anyone with a half decent pension pot and house is a millionaire these days.
That dosent mean they have tens of thousands spare because they are given a bill of tens of thousands based on an imputed rise in value of their property.
Doing that will ruin people.
If you want proper planning reform in England, you need to bring people along with you. That means some give and take. The take is loosening up the regs to allow more infrastructure and housing on land that is pretty but has next to no ecological value.
The give is smashing rich smug arseholes who take the piss.
Just watching Le Tour one of the teams (TotalEnergies) had 11 of their bikes stolen overnight!
Aren't they going to be a bit tricky to sell? Who wants to buy a ultra specialised bike made for people who have like 5% body fat and gearing for people who can push 600 watts with ease.....
Stripped down all the accessories are worth more than a Chinese EV.
- It is well known that MP is not a job for life, and recent years have shown even safe seats can't be relied on - MP's pay lags significantly behind private sector pay for equivalent levels of qualification - It's becoming increasingly difficult for MPs to have other paid work while sitting in parliament - The non-political private sector world is itself becoming more politically sensitive - Therefore the post-political career is ever more important to MPs when considering their ideological and policy positions - This is particularly the case for Tory MPs as explained below
Therefore:
There are broadly 3 positions it makes sense to adopt if you are a Conservative front-line politician, each of which provides for a well paid post-MP career:
1. "Moderate" coded, with remainer vibes. This opens up potentially reasonably lucrative careers in the large corporate world, as a non-exec or adviser, or in a law firm as a public policy expert. There is a parallel path into the world of podcasts and journalism which can be combined with the corporate roles. Nobody going this route is going to become a billionaire but it's a solid career.
2. Free market fundamentalist and Singapore on Thames Brexiteer. There is a world of well paid employment out there in the funds industry and think tanks, as well as the US speaker circuit, if you are convincingly IEA in outlook. There is also the prospect of newspaper columns if you write well.
3. Angry culture warrior. Angry people on both left and right used to struggle to hold down employment after politics, so absorbed were they in their ideology. However with the advent of social media and the factionalisation and spread of US cultural politics there is an extremely lucrative path to be trodden if you can establish yourself as the sort of ideologue who will be welcomed on to the stage of American conservative and MAGA conferences. Probably the most money of all to be earned here
So these are the strange attractors that force Tory politicians to flip towards one or other semi-stable equilibrium. There is some crossover between 2 and 3, but opting for 3 pretty much rules you out of 1, and going down the moderate coded route makes success among the freemarketers challenging.
This is why we don't see many politicians managing to unite the factions in their party. Those who don't neatly fit into one or other category may struggle for post-MP employment. The only hope for many of the one-term red wallers is probably 3. The only get-out is having been a cabinet minister with an important portfolio.
Other parties:
It's a different landscape for the other large GB-wide parties.
For Labour, there is limited scope for social media grift on the far left. There are only so many Owen Joneses out there and little or no demand from across the Atlantic. The left of centre thinktanks are always there but are not the entry point to lucrative roles in the funds industry like those on Tufton St. So the path of least resistance is to be as presentable, corporate and suitable for those chairmanship or consultancy roles as possible.
The charity sector is, by contrast, a much more viable option than for Tory ex-politicians.
For Lib Dems there is really only one lucrative route and that is the equivalent of route 1, but is only feasible if - like Nick Clegg or Vince Cable - you have ascended right to the top of the ranks within the party and ideally held a ministerial post in coalition. Otherwise in most cases your earning power when you leave parliament is going to be very much like what you brought with you before politics.
For Reform MPs, a new and still limited breed, surely route 3 is the be all and end all.
That dynamic might have changed slightly with the very well funded TB Institute. BJO will (not entirely unfairly) label that a Tory institution, but it's also a sign that the Labour Party is rather closer to some of the corporate world than it was.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
A compulsory facial recognition database with ANPR cameras replaced with facial recognition cameras and a year inside for covering your face while driving would soon sort it.
Won't go down well in Guardian Towers though.
As ever, the question is what privacy we are willing to sacrifice for the greater good and will the other uses such a system might be put to by the government and its agencies be worse than allowing a small part of society to cause misery.to others.
Blair passed proceeds of crime legislation to allow the state to seize the receipts of drug dealing and terrorism. What we got was local councils bankrupting residents who pruned a protected tree without permission based on the imputed increased value of their house as a result of the tree no longer causing a light blocking nuisance.
Do you have a linky for that last claim?
Did @MrBedfordshire back this claim up, of someone pruning a TPO Tree being bankrupted after being pursued under Proceeds of Crime law?
I'd really like to see it, as I have never seen POCA used wrt TPO trees, and it is in my area of interest. Getting permission to prune is not difficult, and is free, and we treat damaging TPO trees as an attack on the system of maintaining the public environment, which is what it is.
The closest I am aware of was a millionaire scrote on Sandbanks who added £40k to the value of his property by destroying two TPO trees.
He got off lightly: all he got done for was £2700 fine, £15500 court costs, and the £40k profits he had made by illegally destroying the trees. That fine could have been £25k.
The interesting point here is not the amount but the fact that, as @MrBedfordshire mentioned, the council used POCA in a separate court case after the criminal trial and fine to seize further monies. I would suggest it sets a very dangerous precedent, whatever you might think about the actual case. Using this logic almost anything might be considered as falling under the scope of POCA.
Edit - it also seems very dodgy to me that they waited until 3 years after the original trial before pursuing him under POCA.
I think that's appropriate, but probably inadequate.
This is a rich individual cynically breaking the law because he thinks he's too important to need to obey it. For me it's in the same category as a developer who burns down a listed building because he doesn't want it there in his way.
But I think it needs a heavier punishment than just depriving him of his illegal profits; that's not deterrent enough.
I think the guy should have had a prison sentence as well, pour encourager les autres and deterring anyone else from doing it.
The important point on POCA here is that it needs to be appropriately applied, which is a matter of checks and balances being correct.
Reflecting, I can think of a similar case reported in2023 where the landowner went to jail. There was a case near Leominster where a farmer destroyed 70 trees in an SSI and seriously damaged a long stretch of the River Legg.
He went to prison for 12 months, and was made to pay £1.2m. Repeat offender. At root he thinks it's HIS environment, when in reality it is OURS.
For these types of criminals, imo it's only jail that deters, because they think they are upstanding citizens.
"More than 12 months on, residents have now revealed how Mr Price is hailed by many as a local hero whose actions have been effective in safeguarding homes."
"Villagers say he has succeeded in preventing flooding where the authorities failed and believe he was unfairly mistreated."
"They said that by realigning the river, Mr Price has overcome much of the local flooding issues that have been damaging Kingsland for decades.
Simon Powney, a retained firefighter, said: 'It appears to have been an improvement.
'The river has settled down and looks back to normal.
'We're not getting the flooding problems there that we were. I've seen how it does flood there, but in the last lot of rain we didn't have any problems.
'If the work wasn't done, we would have had what happened last time with the water going into the houses by the bridge."...
Local resident Richard Collishaw added: 'There is a lot of difference down at the bottom of the river by the bridge.
'It looks very tidy now and I'm sure the trees are going to grow back.....
Even his local parish council came out in support in 2021, with Councillor Sebastian Bowen saying: 'The reality is it [the flooding] is much improved.
'People have been quite impressed with what has been done. People have stopped and said it was a good job.'
The Environment Agency previously said the damage was one of the worst cases of riverside destruction it had ever seen, which had a 'devastating' effect on wildlife.
But when asked recently whether Mr Price had alleviated flooding and what the long term impact to the river had been, they refused to address the question."
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
Irrelevant. Had he not done this he could have blamed the Tories for power cuts. Labour will have to own it now.
That's mad.
The decision is stupid, will hurt out balance of trade and help enrich the Putins and Ayatollahs and Mullahs of this world, while doing nothing to aid the environment whatsoever.
But its got absolutely jack all to do with power cuts, or the risk of them.
Yes it's daft - and I fear going to be legally expensive for the Gov't... , at least he lifted the onshore wind ban immediately on taking office.
The oil and gas ban was one of the big reasons I didn't vote for Labour tbh.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
Precisely.
And most NHS medicines rely upon petrochemicals too.
Oil and gas are fungible - and necessary - so cutting production without banning imports merely hurts us while enriching the likes of Putin who gain from our loss.
- It is well known that MP is not a job for life, and recent years have shown even safe seats can't be relied on - MP's pay lags significantly behind private sector pay for equivalent levels of qualification - It's becoming increasingly difficult for MPs to have other paid work while sitting in parliament - The non-political private sector world is itself becoming more politically sensitive - Therefore the post-political career is ever more important to MPs when considering their ideological and policy positions - This is particularly the case for Tory MPs as explained below
Therefore:
There are broadly 3 positions it makes sense to adopt if you are a Conservative front-line politician, each of which provides for a well paid post-MP career:
1. "Moderate" coded, with remainer vibes. This opens up potentially reasonably lucrative careers in the large corporate world, as a non-exec or adviser, or in a law firm as a public policy expert. There is a parallel path into the world of podcasts and journalism which can be combined with the corporate roles. Nobody going this route is going to become a billionaire but it's a solid career.
2. Free market fundamentalist and Singapore on Thames Brexiteer. There is a world of well paid employment out there in the funds industry and think tanks, as well as the US speaker circuit, if you are convincingly IEA in outlook. There is also the prospect of newspaper columns if you write well.
3. Angry culture warrior. Angry people on both left and right used to struggle to hold down employment after politics, so absorbed were they in their ideology. However with the advent of social media and the factionalisation and spread of US cultural politics there is an extremely lucrative path to be trodden if you can establish yourself as the sort of ideologue who will be welcomed on to the stage of American conservative and MAGA conferences. Probably the most money of all to be earned here
So these are the strange attractors that force Tory politicians to flip towards one or other semi-stable equilibrium. There is some crossover between 2 and 3, but opting for 3 pretty much rules you out of 1, and going down the moderate coded route makes success among the freemarketers challenging.
This is why we don't see many politicians managing to unite the factions in their party. Those who don't neatly fit into one or other category may struggle for post-MP employment. The only hope for many of the one-term red wallers is probably 3. The only get-out is having been a cabinet minister with an important portfolio.
Other parties:
It's a different landscape for the other large GB-wide parties.
For Labour, there is limited scope for social media grift on the far left. There are only so many Owen Joneses out there and little or no demand from across the Atlantic. The left of centre thinktanks are always there but are not the entry point to lucrative roles in the funds industry like those on Tufton St. So the path of least resistance is to be as presentable, corporate and suitable for those chairmanship or consultancy roles as possible.
The charity sector is, by contrast, a much more viable option than for Tory ex-politicians.
For Lib Dems there is really only one lucrative route and that is the equivalent of route 1, but is only feasible if - like Nick Clegg or Vince Cable - you have ascended right to the top of the ranks within the party and ideally held a ministerial post in coalition. Otherwise in most cases your earning power when you leave parliament is going to be very much like what you brought with you before politics.
For Reform MPs, a new and still limited breed, surely route 3 is the be all and end all.
That dynamic might have changed slightly with the very well funded TB Institute. BJO will (not entirely unfairly) label that a Tory institution, but it's also a sign that the Labour Party is rather closer to some of the corporate world than it was.
The corporate world yes, but I was thinking specifically of path 2, the funds industry (PE, hedge funds, crypto etc) which is an established option for IEA-style market fundamentalists from the Tory ranks. The centrists and social democrats tend to be found more in the FTSE 100 and large foreign listed groups as well as their industry associations.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
But the decision is not about what we do now, but about what we do some years in the future.
Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
I think it is more the case that they have increased power consumption so much that coal is maxed out and the only way to get the extra was solar
You would be completely wrong in thinking that.
The capacity utilisation figures for their existing coal (and gas) plants tell a different story. Power generated from both types of fossil fuel plants fell in absolute terms on the most recent set of figures - as overall power consumption grew.
"The country [China] added 47.4 Gigawatts (GW) of new coal power in 2023, more than double the amount added by the rest of the world combined"
You're not keeping up with the thread discussion. From above:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-clean-energy-pushes-coal-to-record-low-53-share-of-power-in-may-2024/ ...As a result, gas-fired generation plummeted by 16%, despite a 9% increase in capacity, driving a steep 24% drop in utilisation. Coal-fired generation capacity increased by 3% while power generation from coal fell 3.7%, resulting in average plant utilisation falling by 7%. Falling demand could temper investment in new coal capacity, which has run hot in the past two years.
The changes in coal and gas-fired generation, combined with a slight degradation in the thermal efficiency of coal-fired power plants, imply a 3.6% drop in CO2 emissions from the power sector...
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
But the decision is not about what we do now, but about what we do some years in the future.
Yes and some years in the future we are still going to need petrochemicals, NHS medicines and everything else the industry supports.
We should be looking to end imports and the fungible profits that go to Russia and the Middle East before we look to cut our own production.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
But the decision is not about what we do now, but about what we do some years in the future.
If the press reporting is accurate he's overruled his officials who I'm sure were precisely on top of what could be stopped and when...
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
But the original post was about oil. We're a net exporter of crude oil (not ideal for our Green credentials), a net importer of refined.
If anything, we should seek to taper down our crude production as we make the renewable transition while finding a way to reduce our exposure to Russia etc on refined. Not sure if that second bit is feasible, I'm sure RichT will advise.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
But the decision is not about what we do now, but about what we do some years in the future.
If the press reporting is accurate he's overruled his officials who I'm sure were precisely on top of what could be stopped and when...
Classic Miliband. He’s a menace. This administration’s Grayling.
Just watching Le Tour one of the teams (TotalEnergies) had 11 of their bikes stolen overnight!
Aren't they going to be a bit tricky to sell? Who wants to buy a ultra specialised bike made for people who have like 5% body fat and gearing for people who can push 600 watts with ease.....
Or
- people who think they are like that - people who think they can become like that
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
This is unalloyed garbage. Did you even watch the game last night?
Will Dunn thinks the story has been exaggerated a bit:
I'm told this story is not accurate. My understanding from industry & govt is that no decisions have been made on existing bids in the current license round, Miliband has not overruled officials, and that there is not an immediate ban on new licenses.
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
Definitely lucky this time. 0. Didn't get drawn into one of the hardest groups. 1. A bit lucky to finish top of the group, if Denmark had managed so score a goal against Serbia England would have come second. 1-0, 1-1, 0-0 in a fairly weak group is mediocre at best. England would have faced Germany, and if they'd managed to get through (doubtful), Spain in the quarters. 2. If Germany hadn't equalised in the last minute against Switzerland, England would have probably had to face Germany in the quarter finals. 3. If France had managed to beat Poland, it could have been France in the semis. 4. If Portugal had bothered not to lose against Georgia it would have been the Netherlands rather than Slovakia in the 8th-finals.
Then they were going out against Slovakia until injury time, only got past Switzerland on penalties, and benefited from a soft penalty decision against the Netherlands.
Hard to imagine how England could have had more luck to get to the finals, tbh. Compare to Spain, who were in a group with Italy and Croatia, won all their games, and had to beat Germany and France to get to the finals. Maybe a bit lucky they didn't get a soft penalty given against them for handball vs Germany, but that's it.
Route to the final (world ranking):
Spain Georgia (74) then Germany (16) then France (2) England Slovakia (45) then Switzerland (19) then Netherlands (7)
Not that different, to be honest.
England often struggle against sides that are set up to not concede (see the first five games of the tournament). No surprise that against a side who sought to attack them, they look to be playing better. A lot of England's threat comes from turnover plays and breaking quickly. That doesn't happen so much if the opponents are playing very low risk football. Our best performance was last night. No coincidence.
I truly think the final is 50:50.
Was a funny game, when we didn’t win a single corner!
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
But the decision is not about what we do now, but about what we do some years in the future.
If the press reporting is accurate he's overruled his officials who I'm sure were precisely on top of what could be stopped and when...
Classic Miliband. He’s a menace. This administration’s Grayling.
I can only assume he's been reading encyclopedias of contract law during the general election campaign.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
But the decision is not about what we do now, but about what we do some years in the future.
Yes and some years in the future we are still going to need petrochemicals, NHS medicines and everything else the industry supports.
We should be looking to end imports and the fungible profits that go to Russia and the Middle East before we look to cut our own production.
Hess et al. (2011) says, “Approximately 3% of petroleum production is used for pharmaceutical manufacture”. It’s much lower amounts than we currently use for energy and transport. Existing production as a fossil fuel can be redirected easily to pharmaceutical manufacture as we decarbonise the energy sector.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Yep, there is zero national security argument for gas/oil. If you're fussed about it, we need to reduce our exposure to global energy markets. Neither domestic fossil fuels or renewables provide that.
No one is suggesting changing that, so the only actual cost is to the economy in the NE of Scotland. Which is a real cost, particularly to some of my friends in the sector.
Will Dunn thinks the story has been exaggerated a bit:
I'm told this story is not accurate. My understanding from industry & govt is that no decisions have been made on existing bids in the current license round, Miliband has not overruled officials, and that there is not an immediate ban on new licenses.
Trouble is it does send a signal to investors anyway.
OK, I sincerely hope that's true - whatever one's position on North sea oil and gas and ribbing of Ed Miliband it's better that I and the Telegraph have written a few paragraphs of complete bollocks than the government ends up with a mahoosive legal bill because of Ed Miliband's actions.
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
We beat Germany in Euro 2020, albeit an average Germany team.
And, I'd classify Switzerland as a "good" side this time (I wouldn't say the same of the Netherlands).
But, unfortunately for Southgate, his legacy depends on one game. Win on Sunday, he is a great manager. Lose and he's a nearly manager and not much better than Robson, Venebles and Eriksson.
Not really. None of those three ever reached a final. Southgate has now two to his name.
I'm supposed to be going to Lords tomorrow. I'm still optimistic of getting SOME play. But it's looking increasingly dubious it will last until lunchtime on the third day. Could really do with some rain this afternoon.
I'm going on Sunday but not optimistic the game will still be on.
I would start making other arrangements.
I need the Windies to bat for 2 days. One wonders when the last time they did that was. Probably around 1984.
No point buying tickets for the final days of Tests. They rarely reach the final day and, if they do, you can just buy cheap tickets at the gate.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Yep, there is zero national security argument for gas/oil. If you're fussed about it, we need to reduce our exposure to global energy markets. Neither domestic fossil fuels or renewables provide that.
No one is suggesting changing that, so the only actual cost is to the economy in the NE of Scotland. Which is a real cost, particularly to some of my friends in the sector.
Domestic fossil fuels do provide a domestic source and keeps the industry, skills and profits domestically rather than outsourcing them to Putin.
I 100% support decarbonising our energy and completely welcomed the maddening ban on onshore wind power, but to cut off investment in the North Sea and exposing us even further to imports is neither economic nor environmental.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
Definitely lucky this time. 0. Didn't get drawn into one of the hardest groups. 1. A bit lucky to finish top of the group, if Denmark had managed so score a goal against Serbia England would have come second. 1-0, 1-1, 0-0 in a fairly weak group is mediocre at best. England would have faced Germany, and if they'd managed to get through (doubtful), Spain in the quarters. 2. If Germany hadn't equalised in the last minute against Switzerland, England would have probably had to face Germany in the quarter finals. 3. If France had managed to beat Poland, it could have been France in the semis. 4. If Portugal had bothered not to lose against Georgia it would have been the Netherlands rather than Slovakia in the 8th-finals.
Then they were going out against Slovakia until injury time, only got past Switzerland on penalties, and benefited from a soft penalty decision against the Netherlands.
Hard to imagine how England could have had more luck to get to the finals, tbh. Compare to Spain, who were in a group with Italy and Croatia, won all their games, and had to beat Germany and France to get to the finals. Maybe a bit lucky they didn't get a soft penalty given against them for handball vs Germany, but that's it.
Spain are the standout side for sure. But pick any other finalist, France, Germany, Portugal, Netherlands, Swiss they could play and I can write another script to explain why they had luck on their side. Its the nature of international tournament football.
Spain had a gigantic slice of luck against the Germans – a stonewall penalty for handball when Cucurella saved a goal-bound shot. That is wasn't given on VAR review remains one of the huge mysteries of the tournament.
Some England 'fans' are very weird – they simply cannot give their own side credit. Martin Samuel in the Times was excellent on this topic a few days back.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
We are going to need petrochemicals indefinitely into the future.
Better they come from the North Sea than the Middle East or Russia.
Cutting consumption of oil and gas is a good thing, cutting exploration and future production without banning imports first is not.
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
Definitely lucky this time. 0. Didn't get drawn into one of the hardest groups. 1. A bit lucky to finish top of the group, if Denmark had managed so score a goal against Serbia England would have come second. 1-0, 1-1, 0-0 in a fairly weak group is mediocre at best. England would have faced Germany, and if they'd managed to get through (doubtful), Spain in the quarters. 2. If Germany hadn't equalised in the last minute against Switzerland, England would have probably had to face Germany in the quarter finals. 3. If France had managed to beat Poland, it could have been France in the semis. 4. If Portugal had bothered not to lose against Georgia it would have been the Netherlands rather than Slovakia in the 8th-finals.
Then they were going out against Slovakia until injury time, only got past Switzerland on penalties, and benefited from a soft penalty decision against the Netherlands.
Hard to imagine how England could have had more luck to get to the finals, tbh. Compare to Spain, who were in a group with Italy and Croatia, won all their games, and had to beat Germany and France to get to the finals. Maybe a bit lucky they didn't get a soft penalty given against them for handball vs Germany, but that's it.
Route to the final (world ranking):
Spain Georgia (74) then Germany (16) then France (2) England Slovakia (45) then Switzerland (19) then Netherlands (7)
Not that different, to be honest.
England often struggle against sides that are set up to not concede (see the first five games of the tournament). No surprise that against a side who sought to attack them, they look to be playing better. A lot of England's threat comes from turnover plays and breaking quickly. That doesn't happen so much if the opponents are playing very low risk football. Our best performance was last night. No coincidence.
I truly think the final is 50:50.
Partly disagree with that. World rankings are a bit dodgy (eg Spain behind Belgium, Portugal and the Netherlands) , but even on that criterion Spain were in a group with no 9 (Croatia) and 10 (Italy).
Before extra time, England have won 2 and drawn 4 games. Spain won 6. Georgia might be easier to get past than Slovakia, but I would make Germany much harder than Switzerland, and France much harder than the Netherlands.
Out of the top 5 pre-tournament betting favourites, England ended up on one side of the draw, and France, Germany, Spain and Portugal on the other. Even after those 4 were all drawn on the same side of the draw, they were still in the top 5 betting favorites, I believe.
I don't think it's credible to say that Spain's route to the final was as easy as England's, or even not that different.
Ridiculous over-reaction. Who here hasn't occasionally taken a cab to Clifton Suspension Bridge with two suitcases containing human remains?
Have the police got nothing better to do?
Who indeed ? Do we anticipate a sensational Spectator article in the making ?
It's like when they arrest people for naughty tweets, it's pathetic - and all the time real crimes go unsolved
This is just some guy getting a cab, FFS! To a known beauty spot, Clifton Suspension Bridge, and with a couple of suitcases containing human body parts. What did he do? Misgender them?? Did he do a racist to the cab driver?
What happened to Old England where you could wander around with random pieces of human flesh in the South Downs or the Malverns?
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
Definitely lucky this time. 0. Didn't get drawn into one of the hardest groups. 1. A bit lucky to finish top of the group, if Denmark had managed so score a goal against Serbia England would have come second. 1-0, 1-1, 0-0 in a fairly weak group is mediocre at best. England would have faced Germany, and if they'd managed to get through (doubtful), Spain in the quarters. 2. If Germany hadn't equalised in the last minute against Switzerland, England would have probably had to face Germany in the quarter finals. 3. If France had managed to beat Poland, it could have been France in the semis. 4. If Portugal had bothered not to lose against Georgia it would have been the Netherlands rather than Slovakia in the 8th-finals.
Then they were going out against Slovakia until injury time, only got past Switzerland on penalties, and benefited from a soft penalty decision against the Netherlands.
Hard to imagine how England could have had more luck to get to the finals, tbh. Compare to Spain, who were in a group with Italy and Croatia, won all their games, and had to beat Germany and France to get to the finals. Maybe a bit lucky they didn't get a soft penalty given against them for handball vs Germany, but that's it.
Route to the final (world ranking):
Spain Georgia (74) then Germany (16) then France (2) England Slovakia (45) then Switzerland (19) then Netherlands (7)
Not that different, to be honest.
England often struggle against sides that are set up to not concede (see the first five games of the tournament). No surprise that against a side who sought to attack them, they look to be playing better. A lot of England's threat comes from turnover plays and breaking quickly. That doesn't happen so much if the opponents are playing very low risk football. Our best performance was last night. No coincidence.
I truly think the final is 50:50.
Partly disagree with that. World rankings are a bit dodgy (eg Spain behind Belgium, Portugal and the Netherlands) , but even on that criterion Spain were in a group with no 9 (Croatia) and 10 (Italy).
Before extra time, England have won 2 and drawn 4 games. Spain won 6. Georgia might be easier to get past than Slovakia, but I would make Germany much harder than Switzerland, and France much harder than the Netherlands.
Out of the top 5 pre-tournament betting favourites, England ended up on one side of the draw, and France, Germany, Spain and Portugal on the other. Even after those 4 were all drawn on the same side of the draw, they were still in the top 5 betting favorites, I believe.
I don't think it's credible to say that Spain's route to the final was as easy as England's, or even not that different.
The reason France ended up in Spain's half of the draw is because they failed to win their group. It really is that simple.
I seemed to remember there was that story in nearby Bath from a few years ago where people kept finding bits of body parts. I want to say particularly feet. I can't remember if they actually turned out to be real or if they were for medical teaching purposes.
Compare what Ukraine does to help and rebuild after liberating from Russian occupation to what Russia does once they enter and you can see which country is on the right side of history...
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
Definitely lucky this time. 0. Didn't get drawn into one of the hardest groups. 1. A bit lucky to finish top of the group, if Denmark had managed so score a goal against Serbia England would have come second. 1-0, 1-1, 0-0 in a fairly weak group is mediocre at best. England would have faced Germany, and if they'd managed to get through (doubtful), Spain in the quarters. 2. If Germany hadn't equalised in the last minute against Switzerland, England would have probably had to face Germany in the quarter finals. 3. If France had managed to beat Poland, it could have been France in the semis. 4. If Portugal had bothered not to lose against Georgia it would have been the Netherlands rather than Slovakia in the 8th-finals.
Then they were going out against Slovakia until injury time, only got past Switzerland on penalties, and benefited from a soft penalty decision against the Netherlands.
Hard to imagine how England could have had more luck to get to the finals, tbh. Compare to Spain, who were in a group with Italy and Croatia, won all their games, and had to beat Germany and France to get to the finals. Maybe a bit lucky they didn't get a soft penalty given against them for handball vs Germany, but that's it.
Spain are the standout side for sure. But pick any other finalist, France, Germany, Portugal, Netherlands, Swiss they could play and I can write another script to explain why they had luck on their side. Its the nature of international tournament football.
Spain had a gigantic slice of luck against the Germans – a stonewall penalty for handball when Cucurella saved a goal-bound shot.
Some England 'fans' are very weird – they simply cannot give their own side credit. Martin Samuel in the Times was excellent on this topic a few days back.
England were mediocre to poor AND boring for most of the first 5 games, barely managed to win an easy group, barely got through the 8th final, and quarterfinal despite getting a relatively easy route to the finals. They played well against the Netherlands, and of course getting to the finals is still an achievement.
I can't comment on the Cucurella handball because I am no expert, except to say even the German TV commentary and referee-expert seemed to think the decision was correct, but maybe you are right and they are wrong.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Yep, there is zero national security argument for gas/oil. If you're fussed about it, we need to reduce our exposure to global energy markets. Neither domestic fossil fuels or renewables provide that.
No one is suggesting changing that, so the only actual cost is to the economy in the NE of Scotland. Which is a real cost, particularly to some of my friends in the sector.
Its a cost to the UK balance of trade. It also removes a reliable UK source for the petrochemical industry. In addition North Sea oil is much better than much of the imported stuff, particularly from the Middle East, as it has a far lower sulphide content so needs far less processing.
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
Definitely lucky this time. 0. Didn't get drawn into one of the hardest groups. 1. A bit lucky to finish top of the group, if Denmark had managed so score a goal against Serbia England would have come second. 1-0, 1-1, 0-0 in a fairly weak group is mediocre at best. England would have faced Germany, and if they'd managed to get through (doubtful), Spain in the quarters. 2. If Germany hadn't equalised in the last minute against Switzerland, England would have probably had to face Germany in the quarter finals. 3. If France had managed to beat Poland, it could have been France in the semis. 4. If Portugal had bothered not to lose against Georgia it would have been the Netherlands rather than Slovakia in the 8th-finals.
Then they were going out against Slovakia until injury time, only got past Switzerland on penalties, and benefited from a soft penalty decision against the Netherlands.
Hard to imagine how England could have had more luck to get to the finals, tbh. Compare to Spain, who were in a group with Italy and Croatia, won all their games, and had to beat Germany and France to get to the finals. Maybe a bit lucky they didn't get a soft penalty given against them for handball vs Germany, but that's it.
Spain are the standout side for sure. But pick any other finalist, France, Germany, Portugal, Netherlands, Swiss they could play and I can write another script to explain why they had luck on their side. Its the nature of international tournament football.
Spain had a gigantic slice of luck against the Germans – a stonewall penalty for handball when Cucurella saved a goal-bound shot.
Some England 'fans' are very weird – they simply cannot give their own side credit. Martin Samuel in the Times was excellent on this topic a few days back.
England were mediocre to poor AND boring for most of the first 5 games, barely managed to win an easy group, barely got through the 8th final, and quarterfinal despite getting a relatively easy route to the finals. They played well against the Netherlands, and of course getting to the finals is still an achievement.
I can't comment on the Cucurella handball because I am no expert, except to say even the German TV commentary and referee-expert seemed to think the decision was correct, but maybe you are right and they are wrong.
I am right. The ball would have ended up in the back of the net had Cucurella not flapped his wings at it.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
But the decision is not about what we do now, but about what we do some years in the future.
Nope, for the reasons I have set out it is about what we do now.
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
Definitely lucky this time. 0. Didn't get drawn into one of the hardest groups. 1. A bit lucky to finish top of the group, if Denmark had managed so score a goal against Serbia England would have come second. 1-0, 1-1, 0-0 in a fairly weak group is mediocre at best. England would have faced Germany, and if they'd managed to get through (doubtful), Spain in the quarters. 2. If Germany hadn't equalised in the last minute against Switzerland, England would have probably had to face Germany in the quarter finals. 3. If France had managed to beat Poland, it could have been France in the semis. 4. If Portugal had bothered not to lose against Georgia it would have been the Netherlands rather than Slovakia in the 8th-finals.
Then they were going out against Slovakia until injury time, only got past Switzerland on penalties, and benefited from a soft penalty decision against the Netherlands.
Hard to imagine how England could have had more luck to get to the finals, tbh. Compare to Spain, who were in a group with Italy and Croatia, won all their games, and had to beat Germany and France to get to the finals. Maybe a bit lucky they didn't get a soft penalty given against them for handball vs Germany, but that's it.
Route to the final (world ranking):
Spain Georgia (74) then Germany (16) then France (2) England Slovakia (45) then Switzerland (19) then Netherlands (7)
Not that different, to be honest.
England often struggle against sides that are set up to not concede (see the first five games of the tournament). No surprise that against a side who sought to attack them, they look to be playing better. A lot of England's threat comes from turnover plays and breaking quickly. That doesn't happen so much if the opponents are playing very low risk football. Our best performance was last night. No coincidence.
I truly think the final is 50:50.
Partly disagree with that. World rankings are a bit dodgy (eg Spain behind Belgium, Portugal and the Netherlands) , but even on that criterion Spain were in a group with no 9 (Croatia) and 10 (Italy).
Before extra time, England have won 2 and drawn 4 games. Spain won 6. Georgia might be easier to get past than Slovakia, but I would make Germany much harder than Switzerland, and France much harder than the Netherlands.
Out of the top 5 pre-tournament betting favourites, England ended up on one side of the draw, and France, Germany, Spain and Portugal on the other. Even after those 4 were all drawn on the same side of the draw, they were still in the top 5 betting favorites, I believe.
I don't think it's credible to say that Spain's route to the final was as easy as England's, or even not that different.
The reason France ended up in Spain's half of the draw is because they failed to win their group. It really is that simple.
Yes, and your point is?
btw, France were also pretty disappointing and mostly didn't play very well
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
Hmm.
Do you think it's possible to taper this down in a way that satisfies the transition to renewables while not causing such a cliff edge? Or prioritise not importing some refined products from the baddies as we do it?
This is tricky politics. We are a net exporter of crude oil. How we justify that while pushing renewables...
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
Definitely lucky this time. 0. Didn't get drawn into one of the hardest groups. 1. A bit lucky to finish top of the group, if Denmark had managed so score a goal against Serbia England would have come second. 1-0, 1-1, 0-0 in a fairly weak group is mediocre at best. England would have faced Germany, and if they'd managed to get through (doubtful), Spain in the quarters. 2. If Germany hadn't equalised in the last minute against Switzerland, England would have probably had to face Germany in the quarter finals. 3. If France had managed to beat Poland, it could have been France in the semis. 4. If Portugal had bothered not to lose against Georgia it would have been the Netherlands rather than Slovakia in the 8th-finals.
Then they were going out against Slovakia until injury time, only got past Switzerland on penalties, and benefited from a soft penalty decision against the Netherlands.
Hard to imagine how England could have had more luck to get to the finals, tbh. Compare to Spain, who were in a group with Italy and Croatia, won all their games, and had to beat Germany and France to get to the finals. Maybe a bit lucky they didn't get a soft penalty given against them for handball vs Germany, but that's it.
Route to the final (world ranking):
Spain Georgia (74) then Germany (16) then France (2) England Slovakia (45) then Switzerland (19) then Netherlands (7)
Not that different, to be honest.
England often struggle against sides that are set up to not concede (see the first five games of the tournament). No surprise that against a side who sought to attack them, they look to be playing better. A lot of England's threat comes from turnover plays and breaking quickly. That doesn't happen so much if the opponents are playing very low risk football. Our best performance was last night. No coincidence.
I truly think the final is 50:50.
Partly disagree with that. World rankings are a bit dodgy (eg Spain behind Belgium, Portugal and the Netherlands) , but even on that criterion Spain were in a group with no 9 (Croatia) and 10 (Italy).
Before extra time, England have won 2 and drawn 4 games. Spain won 6. Georgia might be easier to get past than Slovakia, but I would make Germany much harder than Switzerland, and France much harder than the Netherlands.
Out of the top 5 pre-tournament betting favourites, England ended up on one side of the draw, and France, Germany, Spain and Portugal on the other. Even after those 4 were all drawn on the same side of the draw, they were still in the top 5 betting favorites, I believe.
I don't think it's credible to say that Spain's route to the final was as easy as England's, or even not that different.
The reason France ended up in Spain's half of the draw is because they failed to win their group. It really is that simple.
Yes, and your point is?
btw, France were also pretty disappointing and mostly didn't play very well
They should have beaten Spain, who were out on their feet after about 65 minutes. Mbappe's misfiring was bizarre.
Ridiculous over-reaction. Who here hasn't occasionally taken a cab to Clifton Suspension Bridge with two suitcases containing human remains?
Have the police got nothing better to do?
I completely resent that insinuation, I have never done that.
When I dispose of human remains in a suitcase I take my own vehicle to do so, I would never do so in a cab.
Not even an Uber? When I've got dismembered body parts in a rucksack that need to get to a well known tourist hotspot, I find Ubers are really useful. What I don't bloody need is the police sticking their noses in, frankly
Get on with arresting burglars, Like, ACTUAL police work
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
Hmm.
Do you think it's possible to taper this down in a way that satisfies the transition to renewables while not causing such a cliff edge? Or prioritise not importing some refined products from the baddies as we do it?
This is tricky politics. We are a net exporter of crude oil. How we justify that while pushing renewables...
Of course it is.
Taper down consumption of oil and gas and let the market handle the rest.
Firms won't invest in redundant exploration that is unnecessary.
Ridiculous over-reaction. Who here hasn't occasionally taken a cab to Clifton Suspension Bridge with two suitcases containing human remains?
Have the police got nothing better to do?
I completely resent that insinuation, I have never done that.
When I dispose of human remains in a suitcase I take my own vehicle to do so, I would never do so in a cab.
Not even an Uber? When I've got dismembered body parts in a rucksack that need to get to a well known tourist hotspot, I find Ubers are really useful. What I don't bloody need is the police sticking their noses in, frankly
Get on with arresting burglars, Like, ACTUAL police work
A rucksack? That going to take at least 4 trips, even with a big well structured 70l pack.
Ridiculous over-reaction. Who here hasn't occasionally taken a cab to Clifton Suspension Bridge with two suitcases containing human remains?
Have the police got nothing better to do?
I completely resent that insinuation, I have never done that.
When I dispose of human remains in a suitcase I take my own vehicle to do so, I would never do so in a cab.
Not even an Uber? When I've got dismembered body parts in a rucksack that need to get to a well known tourist hotspot, I find Ubers are really useful. What I don't bloody need is the police sticking their noses in, frankly
Get on with arresting burglars, Like, ACTUAL police work
Do you two have no regard for the environment, or congestion? I have a cargo bike I use when I want to transport suitcases containing human remains about the place. And for longer journeys public transport works fine in urban areas.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
Hmm.
Do you think it's possible to taper this down in a way that satisfies the transition to renewables while not causing such a cliff edge? Or prioritise not importing some refined products from the baddies as we do it?
This is tricky politics. We are a net exporter of crude oil. How we justify that while pushing renewables...
Because everything that is good about life is built on gas and oil. Wishful thinking wont reverse that.
Ridiculous over-reaction. Who here hasn't occasionally taken a cab to Clifton Suspension Bridge with two suitcases containing human remains?
Have the police got nothing better to do?
I completely resent that insinuation, I have never done that.
When I dispose of human remains in a suitcase I take my own vehicle to do so, I would never do so in a cab.
Not even an Uber? When I've got dismembered body parts in a rucksack that need to get to a well known tourist hotspot, I find Ubers are really useful. What I don't bloody need is the police sticking their noses in, frankly
Get on with arresting burglars, Like, ACTUAL police work
Do you two have no regard for the environment, or congestion? I have a cargo bike I use when I want to transport suitcases containing human remains about the place. And for longer journeys public transport works fine in urban areas.
Yes. A cargobike would be pretty much perfect. No ANPR and in Woke Bristol you'll blend in..
Ridiculous over-reaction. Who here hasn't occasionally taken a cab to Clifton Suspension Bridge with two suitcases containing human remains?
Have the police got nothing better to do?
I completely resent that insinuation, I have never done that.
When I dispose of human remains in a suitcase I take my own vehicle to do so, I would never do so in a cab.
Not even an Uber? When I've got dismembered body parts in a rucksack that need to get to a well known tourist hotspot, I find Ubers are really useful. What I don't bloody need is the police sticking their noses in, frankly
Get on with arresting burglars, Like, ACTUAL police work
Do you two have no regard for the environment, or congestion? I have a cargo bike I use when I want to transport suitcases containing human remains about the place. And for longer journeys public transport works fine in urban areas.
To illustrate this, I'm on the tram right now. There is a woman with a suitcase opposite me. It's almost certain to contain human remains.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
Hmm.
Do you think it's possible to taper this down in a way that satisfies the transition to renewables while not causing such a cliff edge? Or prioritise not importing some refined products from the baddies as we do it?
This is tricky politics. We are a net exporter of crude oil. How we justify that while pushing renewables...
Of course it is.
Taper down consumption of oil and gas and let the market handle the rest.
Firms won't invest in redundant exploration that is unnecessary.
Not really (dredges up some chemistry), because a lot of the oil you want for plastics etc will be pulled up alongside the stuff you'd use in a car.
Ridiculous over-reaction. Who here hasn't occasionally taken a cab to Clifton Suspension Bridge with two suitcases containing human remains?
Have the police got nothing better to do?
Who indeed ? Do we anticipate a sensational Spectator article in the making ?
It's like when they arrest people for naughty tweets, it's pathetic - and all the time real crimes go unsolved
This is just some guy getting a cab, FFS! To a known beauty spot, Clifton Suspension Bridge, and with a couple of suitcases containing human body parts. What did he do? Misgender them?? Did he do a racist to the cab driver?
What happened to Old England where you could wander around with random pieces of human flesh in the South Downs or the Malverns?
Ridiculous over-reaction. Who here hasn't occasionally taken a cab to Clifton Suspension Bridge with two suitcases containing human remains?
Have the police got nothing better to do?
I completely resent that insinuation, I have never done that.
When I dispose of human remains in a suitcase I take my own vehicle to do so, I would never do so in a cab.
Not even an Uber? When I've got dismembered body parts in a rucksack that need to get to a well known tourist hotspot, I find Ubers are really useful. What I don't bloody need is the police sticking their noses in, frankly
Get on with arresting burglars, Like, ACTUAL police work
Do you two have no regard for the environment, or congestion? I have a cargo bike I use when I want to transport suitcases containing human remains about the place. And for longer journeys public transport works fine in urban areas.
To illustrate this, I'm on the tram right now. There is a woman with a suitcase opposite me. It's almost certain to contain human remains.
Could be black market Scottish oil so don’t just presume it’s body parts.
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
We beat Germany in Euro 2020, albeit an average Germany team.
And, I'd classify Switzerland as a "good" side this time (I wouldn't say the same of the Netherlands).
But, unfortunately for Southgate, his legacy depends on one game. Win on Sunday, he is a great manager. Lose and he's a nearly manager and not much better than Robson, Venebles and Eriksson.
Not really. None of those three ever reached a final. Southgate has now two to his name.
Will Dunn thinks the story has been exaggerated a bit:
I'm told this story is not accurate. My understanding from industry & govt is that no decisions have been made on existing bids in the current license round, Miliband has not overruled officials, and that there is not an immediate ban on new licenses.
I just tuned into Radio 4 Long Wave in the vain hope that it might still be broadcasting Test Match Special.
It wasn't. 🙁
It's on Radio Five SportsXtra on digital.
Not much help if you've managed to keep your motor running since 2010 or so. I listen on 5LSE but they should keep it going on R4LW till about 2040 I think.
Ridiculous over-reaction. Who here hasn't occasionally taken a cab to Clifton Suspension Bridge with two suitcases containing human remains?
Have the police got nothing better to do?
I completely resent that insinuation, I have never done that.
When I dispose of human remains in a suitcase I take my own vehicle to do so, I would never do so in a cab.
Not even an Uber? When I've got dismembered body parts in a rucksack that need to get to a well known tourist hotspot, I find Ubers are really useful. What I don't bloody need is the police sticking their noses in, frankly
Get on with arresting burglars, Like, ACTUAL police work
Do you two have no regard for the environment, or congestion? I have a cargo bike I use when I want to transport suitcases containing human remains about the place. And for longer journeys public transport works fine in urban areas.
What's wrong with good old shanks's pony? If you've only got a bleeding arm , or a pair of severed human hands, just chuck them into a shopping bag and WALK. For a start, its good exercise
This is why walkable "fifteen minute cities" are such a good idea. You've got a decapitated head in a tea cosy, you don't need ANY transport to take it to the park
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
Has any official announcement actually been reported anywhere reputable ?
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
Definitely lucky this time. 0. Didn't get drawn into one of the hardest groups. 1. A bit lucky to finish top of the group, if Denmark had managed so score a goal against Serbia England would have come second. 1-0, 1-1, 0-0 in a fairly weak group is mediocre at best. England would have faced Germany, and if they'd managed to get through (doubtful), Spain in the quarters. 2. If Germany hadn't equalised in the last minute against Switzerland, England would have probably had to face Germany in the quarter finals. 3. If France had managed to beat Poland, it could have been France in the semis. 4. If Portugal had bothered not to lose against Georgia it would have been the Netherlands rather than Slovakia in the 8th-finals.
Then they were going out against Slovakia until injury time, only got past Switzerland on penalties, and benefited from a soft penalty decision against the Netherlands.
Hard to imagine how England could have had more luck to get to the finals, tbh. Compare to Spain, who were in a group with Italy and Croatia, won all their games, and had to beat Germany and France to get to the finals. Maybe a bit lucky they didn't get a soft penalty given against them for handball vs Germany, but that's it.
Spain are the standout side for sure. But pick any other finalist, France, Germany, Portugal, Netherlands, Swiss they could play and I can write another script to explain why they had luck on their side. Its the nature of international tournament football.
Spain had a gigantic slice of luck against the Germans – a stonewall penalty for handball when Cucurella saved a goal-bound shot.
Some England 'fans' are very weird – they simply cannot give their own side credit. Martin Samuel in the Times was excellent on this topic a few days back.
England were mediocre to poor AND boring for most of the first 5 games, barely managed to win an easy group, barely got through the 8th final, and quarterfinal despite getting a relatively easy route to the finals. They played well against the Netherlands, and of course getting to the finals is still an achievement.
I can't comment on the Cucurella handball because I am no expert, except to say even the German TV commentary and referee-expert seemed to think the decision was correct, but maybe you are right and they are wrong.
If they were mediocre to poor they would have lost. Sure they didn't set the world on fire, but they did the job. They are in the final and deserve to be. France gone. Germany gone. etc.
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
Definitely lucky this time. 0. Didn't get drawn into one of the hardest groups. 1. A bit lucky to finish top of the group, if Denmark had managed so score a goal against Serbia England would have come second. 1-0, 1-1, 0-0 in a fairly weak group is mediocre at best. England would have faced Germany, and if they'd managed to get through (doubtful), Spain in the quarters. 2. If Germany hadn't equalised in the last minute against Switzerland, England would have probably had to face Germany in the quarter finals. 3. If France had managed to beat Poland, it could have been France in the semis. 4. If Portugal had bothered not to lose against Georgia it would have been the Netherlands rather than Slovakia in the 8th-finals.
Then they were going out against Slovakia until injury time, only got past Switzerland on penalties, and benefited from a soft penalty decision against the Netherlands.
Hard to imagine how England could have had more luck to get to the finals, tbh. Compare to Spain, who were in a group with Italy and Croatia, won all their games, and had to beat Germany and France to get to the finals. Maybe a bit lucky they didn't get a soft penalty given against them for handball vs Germany, but that's it.
Spain are the standout side for sure. But pick any other finalist, France, Germany, Portugal, Netherlands, Swiss they could play and I can write another script to explain why they had luck on their side. Its the nature of international tournament football.
Spain had a gigantic slice of luck against the Germans – a stonewall penalty for handball when Cucurella saved a goal-bound shot.
Some England 'fans' are very weird – they simply cannot give their own side credit. Martin Samuel in the Times was excellent on this topic a few days back.
England were mediocre to poor AND boring for most of the first 5 games, barely managed to win an easy group, barely got through the 8th final, and quarterfinal despite getting a relatively easy route to the finals. They played well against the Netherlands, and of course getting to the finals is still an achievement.
I can't comment on the Cucurella handball because I am no expert, except to say even the German TV commentary and referee-expert seemed to think the decision was correct, but maybe you are right and they are wrong.
The decision was correct by current UEFA refereeing guidelines. In the Prem it would be a pen, or at least was at the start of the season, by the second half of the season it had got confused. Fifa might have given different guidelines had it been a World Cup. And whatever the rules are now they will be changed a bit by the next tournament.
It is not hard to see why fans and commentators are bemused and confused.
Ridiculous over-reaction. Who here hasn't occasionally taken a cab to Clifton Suspension Bridge with two suitcases containing human remains?
Have the police got nothing better to do?
He left the suitcases sitting there? This is the problem with modern Britain - a lack of training in technical manual tasks.
The Cali Cartel taught their guys a standardised disposal methods - wrap the body in chicken wire, with rocks inside, use heavy cable ties to prevent the chickenwire unrolling, then into the river.
Comments
Hmmmm
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/dale-vince-labour-ecotricity-sophy-ridge-british-b2367991.html
"Card payments down across the UK as Visa and Mastercard investigate – latest updates"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/11/economy-grows-faster-than-expected-in-boost-for-starmer/
Ed Miliband is an odd character: someone who seems never to make a sensible decision.
His decision to run as Leader against his brother.
His decision to vote against action in Syria.
His decision to change Labour Party leadership rules.
Each had quite profound, damaging consequences.
I trust Mr Miliband took legal advice on where & whence the line should precisely fall for new drilling contracts in the north sea ?
AFAICS he hasn't been ruined. He's just lost his illegal profits.
If he wants to prune protected trees, a free, not at all difficult, system exists for him to use. He thought he was above the law and could do whatever he wanted.
Personally I'd say that the landowner destroying public benefit is the one behaving like a Nortman Baron.
https://news.sky.com/story/new-coal-plants-in-china-soar-despite-president-xis-pledge-to-strictly-control-dirtiest-fuel-13112101
0. Didn't get drawn into one of the hardest groups.
1. A bit lucky to finish top of the group, if Denmark had managed so score a goal against Serbia England would have come second. 1-0, 1-1, 0-0 in a fairly weak group is mediocre at best. England would have faced Germany, and if they'd managed to get through (doubtful), Spain in the quarters.
2. If Germany hadn't equalised in the last minute against Switzerland, England would have probably had to face Germany in the quarter finals.
3. If France had managed to beat Poland, it could have been France in the semis.
4. If Portugal had bothered not to lose against Georgia it would have been the Netherlands rather than Slovakia in the 8th-finals.
Then they were going out against Slovakia until injury time, only got past Switzerland on penalties, and benefited from a soft penalty decision against the Netherlands.
Hard to imagine how England could have had more luck to get to the finals, tbh. Compare to Spain, who were in a group with Italy and Croatia, won all their games, and had to beat Germany and France to get to the finals. Maybe a bit lucky they didn't get a soft penalty given against them for handball vs Germany, but that's it.
That dosent mean they have tens of thousands spare because they are given a bill of tens of thousands based on an imputed rise in value of their property.
Doing that will ruin people.
Spain Georgia (74) then Germany (16) then France (2)
England Slovakia (45) then Switzerland (19) then Netherlands (7)
Not that different, to be honest.
England often struggle against sides that are set up to not concede (see the first five games of the tournament). No surprise that against a side who sought to attack them, they look to be playing better. A lot of England's threat comes from turnover plays and breaking quickly. That doesn't happen so much if the opponents are playing very low risk football. Our best performance was last night. No coincidence.
I truly think the final is 50:50.
The decision is stupid, will hurt out balance of trade and help enrich the Putins and Ayatollahs and Mullahs of this world, while doing nothing to aid the environment whatsoever.
But its got absolutely jack all to do with power cuts, or the risk of them.
The give is smashing rich smug arseholes who take the piss.
BJO will (not entirely unfairly) label that a Tory institution, but it's also a sign that the Labour Party is rather closer to some of the corporate world than it was.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
He chose to destroy a Site of Special Scientific Interest.
The oil and gas ban was one of the big reasons I didn't vote for Labour tbh.
And most NHS medicines rely upon petrochemicals too.
Oil and gas are fungible - and necessary - so cutting production without banning imports merely hurts us while enriching the likes of Putin who gain from our loss.
From above:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-clean-energy-pushes-coal-to-record-low-53-share-of-power-in-may-2024/
...As a result, gas-fired generation plummeted by 16%, despite a 9% increase in capacity, driving a steep 24% drop in utilisation. Coal-fired generation capacity increased by 3% while power generation from coal fell 3.7%, resulting in average plant utilisation falling by 7%. Falling demand could temper investment in new coal capacity, which has run hot in the past two years.
The changes in coal and gas-fired generation, combined with a slight degradation in the thermal efficiency of coal-fired power plants, imply a 3.6% drop in CO2 emissions from the power sector...
That's this year, not last.
We should be looking to end imports and the fungible profits that go to Russia and the Middle East before we look to cut our own production.
But the original post was about oil. We're a net exporter of crude oil (not ideal for our Green credentials), a net importer of refined.
If anything, we should seek to taper down our crude production as we make the renewable transition while finding a way to reduce our exposure to Russia etc on refined. Not sure if that second bit is feasible, I'm sure RichT will advise.
Avon and Somerset Police confirmed an investigation has been launched to find the man who left the suitcases and then identify the body.
The police said the man was taken to the bridge, that connects Clifton in Bristol to Leigh Woods in North Somerset, in a taxi.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czq6g01lggno
He’s a menace. This administration’s Grayling.
- people who think they are like that
- people who think they can become like that
Was @Dura_Ace in the vicinity?
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
I'm told this story is not accurate. My understanding from industry & govt is that no decisions have been made on existing bids in the current license round, Miliband has not overruled officials, and that there is not an immediate ban on new licenses.
https://x.com/willydunn/status/1811376675097039244?s=46
Trouble is it does send a signal to investors anyway.
No one is suggesting changing that, so the only actual cost is to the economy in the NE of Scotland. Which is a real cost, particularly to some of my friends in the sector.
Have the police got nothing better to do?
Is Arteta a "nearly manager" then?
I 100% support decarbonising our energy and completely welcomed the maddening ban on onshore wind power, but to cut off investment in the North Sea and exposing us even further to imports is neither economic nor environmental.
Some England 'fans' are very weird – they simply cannot give their own side credit. Martin Samuel in the Times was excellent on this topic a few days back.
Better they come from the North Sea than the Middle East or Russia.
Cutting consumption of oil and gas is a good thing, cutting exploration and future production without banning imports first is not.
Do we anticipate a sensational Spectator article in the making ?
Before extra time, England have won 2 and drawn 4 games. Spain won 6.
Georgia might be easier to get past than Slovakia, but I would make Germany much harder than Switzerland, and France much harder than the Netherlands.
Out of the top 5 pre-tournament betting favourites, England ended up on one side of the draw, and France, Germany, Spain and Portugal on the other. Even after those 4 were all drawn on the same side of the draw, they were still in the top 5 betting favorites, I believe.
I don't think it's credible to say that Spain's route to the final was as easy as England's, or even not that different.
This is just some guy getting a cab, FFS! To a known beauty spot, Clifton Suspension Bridge, and with a couple of suitcases containing human body parts. What did he do? Misgender them?? Did he do a racist to the cab driver?
What happened to Old England where you could wander around with random pieces of human flesh in the South Downs or the Malverns?
U.S CPI (MOM) (JUN) ACTUAL: -0.1% VS 0.0% PREVIOUS; EST 0.1%
U.S CPI (YOY) (JUN) ACTUAL: 3.0% VS 3.3% PREVIOUS; EST 3.1%
U.S CORE CPI (MOM) (JUN) ACTUAL: 0.1% VS 0.2% PREVIOUS; EST 0.2%
U.S CORE CPI (YOY) (JUN) ACTUAL: 3.3% VS 3.4% PREVIOUS; EST 3.4%
https://x.com/DeItaone/status/1811377638113521875
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
..there are places russia has occupied for 10 years that they still havent restored electric power or water.
https://x.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1811375743407980926
I can't comment on the Cucurella handball because I am no expert, except to say even the German TV commentary and referee-expert seemed to think the decision was correct, but maybe you are right and they are wrong.
btw, France were also pretty disappointing and mostly didn't play very well
When I dispose of human remains in a suitcase I take my own vehicle to do so, I would never do so in a cab.
Do you think it's possible to taper this down in a way that satisfies the transition to renewables while not causing such a cliff edge? Or prioritise not importing some refined products from the baddies as we do it?
This is tricky politics. We are a net exporter of crude oil. How we justify that while pushing renewables...
Get on with arresting burglars, Like, ACTUAL police work
It wasn't. 🙁
Taper down consumption of oil and gas and let the market handle the rest.
Firms won't invest in redundant exploration that is unnecessary.
This is why walkable "fifteen minute cities" are such a good idea. You've got a decapitated head in a tea cosy, you don't need ANY transport to take it to the park
Spain have been good, but not THAT good.
It is not hard to see why fans and commentators are bemused and confused.
The Cali Cartel taught their guys a standardised disposal methods - wrap the body in chicken wire, with rocks inside, use heavy cable ties to prevent the chickenwire unrolling, then into the river.