In Kemiworld tactical voting is dirty tricks – politicalbetting.com

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

StillWaters said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

StillWaters said:

MattW said:

Good morning everyone.

I've had another little nibble, laying Kemi.

Several interesting FPTs that I missed:

StillWaters said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Taz said:

Cookie said:

turbotubbs said:

Eabhal said:

Cookie said:

While we're on about clickbaity-yet-seemingly-true stories in the headlines, in further evidence that they hate the British in general and their customers in particular, National Trust cafes to go half-vegan:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/06/national-trust-cafe-food-vegan-net-zero-hypocrisy-vote/

It's sad that I see that URL and immediately assume it's nonsense. I hope the Times doesn't go that way.

Is half vegan a bit like half virgin?

The idea is that half the food in the cafes will be vegan. The unsold half, presumably. Presumably because they hate their customers.

Although they like their money.

From the story link:-

National Trust catering is already about 40 per cent plant-based nationally, and the charity said it could increase to 50 per cent within two years if the resolution is passed, while keeping dairy, eggs and meat on the menu.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/06/national-trust-cafe-food-vegan-net-zero-hypocrisy-vote/ (£££)

Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.

But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?

Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.

I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.

NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).

NT properties are far to focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking there, and would be repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence.

Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding
articles they have published puffing, for
example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in
their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.

I’m sure that the Telegraph is pushing an agenda.

Generally, though, vegan food tastes (to me) less good than traditional food. Of course you have it on offer and if it sells better you adjust your stocking policies.

But it seems very odd to have a strategic objective to increase stocking of a product that some customers don’t like as much. It’s a bureaucratic mindset.

(FWIW I spend a considerable amount of time thinking about burping cows and how to manage their methane emissions)

So vegan apples taste worse than....apples?
Seriously, mention the word vegan,and people lose their shit over it.

I’m not the one losing my shit here…

It weird how wound up some people get about what other people eat. It stems from deep childhood memories and being forced to eat your greens. Anyone who likes their greens is deeply suspicious to them.

Anyone who likes broccoli is surely somebody you should be deeply suspicious of?

nico679 said:

bondegezou said:

Trump would end sanctions on Russia: https://newrepublic.com/post/185652/trump-sanctions-promise-adviser-charged-russia-media

And yet some Tories who allegedly support Ukraine at the same time want a Trump win .

rottenborough said:

nico679 said:

rottenborough said:

This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:


Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”

A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”


Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut
Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/labour-ministers-reveal-grave-concerns-about-winter-fuel-payment-cut

Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .

Does this tell us that Starmer is just stepping back and letting Reeves get on with the economics because it an area in knows absolutely nothing about? Or was he involved in the decision and agreed it was a good move?

The latter is even worse than the former.

nico679 said:

bondegezou said:

Trump would end sanctions on Russia: https://newrepublic.com/post/185652/trump-sanctions-promise-adviser-charged-russia-media

And yet some Tories who allegedly support Ukraine at the same time want a Trump win .

Sandpit said:

rottenborough said:

MarqueeMark said:

Ukraine has hit a Russian ammunition warehouse filled with North Korean missiles.

Shame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZOb2maZH6U&ab_channel=Kanal13

did any of them go off?

Oh yes. Yes they did, over the course of several hours. What a shame.

https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1832222481890803964

edmundintokyo said:

nico679 said:

rottenborough said:

This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:


Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”

A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”


Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut
Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/labour-ministers-reveal-grave-concerns-about-winter-fuel-payment-cut

Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .

Meh. They just got elected, the voters will have forgotten about it in 5 years. This is the right time to hose out the bad policies that are unpopular to end.

Casino_Royale said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

StillWaters said:

MattW said:

Good morning everyone.

I've had another little nibble, laying Kemi.

Several interesting FPTs that I missed:

StillWaters said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Taz said:

Cookie said:

turbotubbs said:

Eabhal said:

Cookie said:

While we're on about clickbaity-yet-seemingly-true stories in the headlines, in further evidence that they hate the British in general and their customers in particular, National Trust cafes to go half-vegan:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/06/national-trust-cafe-food-vegan-net-zero-hypocrisy-vote/

It's sad that I see that URL and immediately assume it's nonsense. I hope the Times doesn't go that way.

Is half vegan a bit like half virgin?

The idea is that half the food in the cafes will be vegan. The unsold half, presumably. Presumably because they hate their customers.

Although they like their money.

From the story link:-

National Trust catering is already about 40 per cent plant-based nationally, and the charity said it could increase to 50 per cent within two years if the resolution is passed, while keeping dairy, eggs and meat on the menu.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/06/national-trust-cafe-food-vegan-net-zero-hypocrisy-vote/ (£££)

Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.

But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?

Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.

I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.

NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).

NT properties are far to focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking there, and would be repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence.

Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding
articles they have published puffing, for
example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in
their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.

I’m sure that the Telegraph is pushing an agenda.

Generally, though, vegan food tastes (to me) less good than traditional food. Of course you have it on offer and if it sells better you adjust your stocking policies.

But it seems very odd to have a strategic objective to increase stocking of a product that some customers don’t like as much. It’s a bureaucratic mindset.

(FWIW I spend a considerable amount of time thinking about burping cows and how to manage their methane emissions)

So vegan apples taste worse than....apples?
Seriously, mention the word vegan,and people lose their shit over it.

Because of the ideology that comes with it. It's almost religious.

Vegans hector, lecture and preach, and try to restrict wherever they can, and no-one likes that.

nico679 said:

edmundintokyo said:

nico679 said:

rottenborough said:

This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:


Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”

A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”


Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut
Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/labour-ministers-reveal-grave-concerns-about-winter-fuel-payment-cut

Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .

Meh. They just got elected, the voters will have forgotten about it in 5 years. This is the right time to hose out the bad policies that are unpopular to end.

Pensioners won’t forget . The policy burns so much political capital for very little in terms of sums raised .

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Casino_Royale said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

StillWaters said:

MattW said:

Good morning everyone.

I've had another little nibble, laying Kemi.

Several interesting FPTs that I missed:

StillWaters said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Taz said:

Cookie said:

turbotubbs said:

Eabhal said:

Cookie said:

While we're on about clickbaity-yet-seemingly-true stories in the headlines, in further evidence that they hate the British in general and their customers in particular, National Trust cafes to go half-vegan:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/06/national-trust-cafe-food-vegan-net-zero-hypocrisy-vote/

It's sad that I see that URL and immediately assume it's nonsense. I hope the Times doesn't go that way.

Is half vegan a bit like half virgin?

The idea is that half the food in the cafes will be vegan. The unsold half, presumably. Presumably because they hate their customers.

Although they like their money.

From the story link:-

National Trust catering is already about 40 per cent plant-based nationally, and the charity said it could increase to 50 per cent within two years if the resolution is passed, while keeping dairy, eggs and meat on the menu.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/06/national-trust-cafe-food-vegan-net-zero-hypocrisy-vote/ (£££)

Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.

But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?

Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.

I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.

NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).

NT properties are far to focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking there, and would be repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence.

Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding
articles they have published puffing, for
example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in
their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.

I’m sure that the Telegraph is pushing an agenda.

Generally, though, vegan food tastes (to me) less good than traditional food. Of course you have it on offer and if it sells better you adjust your stocking policies.

But it seems very odd to have a strategic objective to increase stocking of a product that some customers don’t like as much. It’s a bureaucratic mindset.

(FWIW I spend a considerable amount of time thinking about burping cows and how to manage their methane emissions)

So vegan apples taste worse than....apples?
Seriously, mention the word vegan,and people lose their shit over it.

Because of the ideology that comes with it. It's almost religious.

Vegans hector, lecture and preach, and try to restrict wherever they can, and no-one likes that.

Sure, internet celebs and influencers love to shout about their chosen grift, but I don't know any vegans in real life who are like that ( ok, I have met few right on activists.)
The sheer volume of food in supermarkets that is accidentally vegan that you normal fellas must be eating will seriously upset you!

Fffs said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Casino_Royale said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

StillWaters said:

MattW said:

Good morning everyone.

I've had another little nibble, laying Kemi.

Several interesting FPTs that I missed:

StillWaters said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Taz said:

Cookie said:

turbotubbs said:

Eabhal said:

Cookie said:

While we're on about clickbaity-yet-seemingly-true stories in the headlines, in further evidence that they hate the British in general and their customers in particular, National Trust cafes to go half-vegan:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/06/national-trust-cafe-food-vegan-net-zero-hypocrisy-vote/

It's sad that I see that URL and immediately assume it's nonsense. I hope the Times doesn't go that way.

Is half vegan a bit like half virgin?

The idea is that half the food in the cafes will be vegan. The unsold half, presumably. Presumably because they hate their customers.

Although they like their money.

From the story link:-

National Trust catering is already about 40 per cent plant-based nationally, and the charity said it could increase to 50 per cent within two years if the resolution is passed, while keeping dairy, eggs and meat on the menu.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/06/national-trust-cafe-food-vegan-net-zero-hypocrisy-vote/ (£££)

Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.

But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?

Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.

I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.

NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).

NT properties are far to focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking there, and would be repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence.

Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding
articles they have published puffing, for
example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in
their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.

I’m sure that the Telegraph is pushing an agenda.

Generally, though, vegan food tastes (to me) less good than traditional food. Of course you have it on offer and if it sells better you adjust your stocking policies.

But it seems very odd to have a strategic objective to increase stocking of a product that some customers don’t like as much. It’s a bureaucratic mindset.

(FWIW I spend a considerable amount of time thinking about burping cows and how to manage their methane emissions)

So vegan apples taste worse than....apples?
Seriously, mention the word vegan,and people lose their shit over it.

Because of the ideology that comes with it. It's almost religious.

Vegans hector, lecture and preach, and try to restrict wherever they can, and no-one likes that.

Sure, internet celebs and influencers love to shout about their chosen grift, but I don't know any vegans in real life who are like that ( ok, I have met few right on activists.)
The sheer volume of food in supermarkets that is accidentally vegan that you normal fellas must be eating will seriously upset you!

It is not the food but the ideology that upsets people.

Jonathan said:

The Hunt is on for a serious leader.

Casino_Royale said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

StillWaters said:

MattW said:

Good morning everyone.

I've had another little nibble, laying Kemi.

Several interesting FPTs that I missed:

StillWaters said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Taz said:

Cookie said:

turbotubbs said:

Eabhal said:

Cookie said:

While we're on about clickbaity-yet-seemingly-true stories in the headlines, in further evidence that they hate the British in general and their customers in particular, National Trust cafes to go half-vegan:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/06/national-trust-cafe-food-vegan-net-zero-hypocrisy-vote/

It's sad that I see that URL and immediately assume it's nonsense. I hope the Times doesn't go that way.

Is half vegan a bit like half virgin?

The idea is that half the food in the cafes will be vegan. The unsold half, presumably. Presumably because they hate their customers.

Although they like their money.

From the story link:-

National Trust catering is already about 40 per cent plant-based nationally, and the charity said it could increase to 50 per cent within two years if the resolution is passed, while keeping dairy, eggs and meat on the menu.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/06/national-trust-cafe-food-vegan-net-zero-hypocrisy-vote/ (£££)

Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.

But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?

Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.

I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.

NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).

NT properties are far to focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking there, and would be repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence.

Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding
articles they have published puffing, for
example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in
their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.

I’m sure that the Telegraph is pushing an agenda.

Generally, though, vegan food tastes (to me) less good than traditional food. Of course you have it on offer and if it sells better you adjust your stocking policies.

But it seems very odd to have a strategic objective to increase stocking of a product that some customers don’t like as much. It’s a bureaucratic mindset.

(FWIW I spend a considerable amount of time thinking about burping cows and how to manage their methane emissions)

So vegan apples taste worse than....apples?
Seriously, mention the word vegan,and people lose their shit over it.

Because of the ideology that comes with it. It's almost religious.

Vegans hector, lecture and preach, and try to restrict wherever they can, and no-one likes that.

williamglenn said:

nico679 said:

bondegezou said:

Trump would end sanctions on Russia: https://newrepublic.com/post/185652/trump-sanctions-promise-adviser-charged-russia-media

And yet some Tories who allegedly support Ukraine at the same time want a Trump win .

Have sanctions worked?

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

nico679 said:

bondegezou said:

Trump would end sanctions on Russia: https://newrepublic.com/post/185652/trump-sanctions-promise-adviser-charged-russia-media

And yet some Tories who allegedly support Ukraine at the same time want a Trump win .

Have sanctions worked?

Does “williamglenn” have access to Google?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OldKingCole said:

nico679 said:

edmundintokyo said:

nico679 said:

rottenborough said:

This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:


Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”

A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”


Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut
Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/labour-ministers-reveal-grave-concerns-about-winter-fuel-payment-cut

Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .

Meh. They just got elected, the voters will have forgotten about it in 5 years. This is the right time to hose out the bad policies that are unpopular to end.

Pensioners won’t forget . The policy burns so much political capital for very little in terms of sums raised .

Personally I would be surprised if I'm still here to express a view in 5 years time, but I agree; case as stated scraping the WFA without a sensible alternative..... and Pension Credit isn't ..... is a very foolish policy.

Me too

FrankBooth said:

I'm not paying great attention to the leadership contest but the hostility to Badenoch is very interesting to me. I sense people feel threatened. The centre left would presumably prefer Jenrick. I'm not sure why.

As for Badenoch 'starting an argument in an empty room' where is the evidence she is of that inclination? She's certainly forthright in defending herself I'll give you that.

FrankBooth said:

I'm not paying great attention to the leadership contest but the hostility to Badenoch is very interesting to me. I sense people feel threatened.

mercator said:

rottenborough said:

nico679 said:

rottenborough said:

This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:


Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”

A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”


Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut
Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/labour-ministers-reveal-grave-concerns-about-winter-fuel-payment-cut

Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .

Does this tell us that Starmer is just stepping back and letting Reeves get on with the economics because it an area in knows absolutely nothing about? Or was he involved in the decision and agreed it was a good move?

The latter is even worse than the former.

It's not not knowing about economics, it's not knowing about being poor. I think he claimed that the Toolmaker's telephone was cut off for non payment in his childhood but if that is true he has forgotten how it felt.

It's like Maggie Thatcher - milk snatcher: a third of a pint of milk and £300 and being cold are things which are immediately understood and felt by everyone as opposed to something like "reducing the marginal rate of tax relief on AVCs" which most people don't understand and those who do understand don't grasp so viscerally.

I can't believe Labour don't know this. I think their miscalculation was that they thought the message they were sending was Look what those wicked Tories made us do to you with their evil black hole, rather than the actual Vote labour and freeze.

rottenborough said:

This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:


Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”

A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”


Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut
Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/labour-ministers-reveal-grave-concerns-about-winter-fuel-payment-cut

MattW said:

Good morning everyone.

I've had another little nibble, laying Kemi.

Several interesting FPTs that I missed:

StillWaters said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Taz said:

Cookie said:

turbotubbs said:

Eabhal said:

Cookie said:

While we're on about clickbaity-yet-seemingly-true stories in the headlines, in further evidence that they hate the British in general and their customers in particular, National Trust cafes to go half-vegan:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/06/national-trust-cafe-food-vegan-net-zero-hypocrisy-vote/

It's sad that I see that URL and immediately assume it's nonsense. I hope the Times doesn't go that way.

Is half vegan a bit like half virgin?

The idea is that half the food in the cafes will be vegan. The unsold half, presumably. Presumably because they hate their customers.

Although they like their money.

From the story link:-

National Trust catering is already about 40 per cent plant-based nationally, and the charity said it could increase to 50 per cent within two years if the resolution is passed, while keeping dairy, eggs and meat on the menu.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/06/national-trust-cafe-food-vegan-net-zero-hypocrisy-vote/ (£££)

Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.

But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?

Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.

I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.

NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).

NT properties are far too focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking (or wheeling or cycling) there, and would be likely repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence; that's a lot of lost potential members. They are starting to address that.

Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding articles they have published puffing, for example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.

Sandpit said:

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

hey, does anybody want to see four moored nuclear subs because we don't know how to decommission them?

Maitland Road, Rosyth: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4T5aP7mqy6DN5u7A8

I quite like Jacob Rees Mogg's idea (if it was him) delivered in the Liz Truss blue sky thinking session that we could plug a nuclear submarine into the grid and get free power.

I have no idea whether it would work, perhaps someone with greater nuclear knowledge than myself (almost everyone here) could opine.

They considered it during the early years of the Troubles. When strikes threatened power production they considered parking a nukesub in Belfast and running cables thru. But there are logistic problems: the reactor doesn't have a handy output socket and getting the cables out is difficult

Everything in a submarine that goes in or out has to fit thru a hatch. The submarines weren't built to allow cables to be run from the hatch to the reactor and I'm not sure the cable diameter was smaller than the hatch diameter. They thought they'd have to carve a hole in the hull.

Perhaps they could have done it eventually (military move fast when needed) but the urgency went away

TLDR: subs aren't built to do this

Once built, a submarine is a horrible thing on which to work.

The reactor is designed for the life of the sub, is one of the first parts installed and the hull gets built around it. Any subsequent attempt to service the reactor involves cutting holes in the side of the rather thick metal hull.

To plug one into the grid, you’d need to find a way to get the entire electrical output onto a few cables that could somehow leave the sub and plug in onshore.

rottenborough said:

This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:


Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”

A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”


Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut
Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/labour-ministers-reveal-grave-concerns-about-winter-fuel-payment-cut

Stark_Dawning said:

rottenborough said:

This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:


Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”

A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”


Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut
Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/labour-ministers-reveal-grave-concerns-about-winter-fuel-payment-cut

I feel a bit sorry for Rachel and Sir Keir. Their campaign was peppered with the phrases 'need to make tough decision' and 'painful choices ahead'. Yet as soon as the first painful choice is made everyone starts being beastly to them. Do these people not listen?

numbertwelve said:

rottenborough said:

nico679 said:

rottenborough said:

This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:


Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”

A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”


Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut
Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/labour-ministers-reveal-grave-concerns-about-winter-fuel-payment-cut

Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .

Does this tell us that Starmer is just stepping back and letting Reeves get on with the economics because it an area in knows absolutely nothing about? Or was he involved in the decision and agreed it was a good move?

The latter is even worse than the former.

I think they genuinely thought that people would blame the Tories, not them. Some remnants of opposition thinking followed them into government. It is very, very hard to successfully blame a decision on a previous government, when you didn’t really say anything of consequence during the election campaign to prepare the ground for it.

FrankBooth said:

Can the Tories really afford a placeholder leader? Reform and the Lib Dems are circling like vultures.

williamglenn said:

Stark_Dawning said:

rottenborough said:

This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:


Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”

A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”


Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut
Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/labour-ministers-reveal-grave-concerns-about-winter-fuel-payment-cut

I feel a bit sorry for Rachel and Sir Keir. Their campaign was peppered with the phrases 'need to make tough decision' and 'painful choices ahead'. Yet as soon as the first painful choice is made everyone starts being beastly to them. Do these people not listen?

They interpreted "painful decisions" as meaning that he would throw his manifesto in the bin and say that we need to rejoin the EU.

Roger said:

GIN1138 said:

Roger said:

rottenborough said:

This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:


Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”

A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”


Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut
Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/labour-ministers-reveal-grave-concerns-about-winter-fuel-payment-cut

Where is the evidence outside of hysterics by the Mail and Express?

If a quarter of pensioners are millionaires it's reasonable to assume that they at least won't miss the £300 gift. Many anecdotally found it an embarrasment or found a charity to give it to. One apparently specifically designed to take it

It told me that Reeves is a serious politician who wants to put things on a sensible footing and gimmicks are not part of her plans.

If only every pensioner was a millionaire with the mansion on the Cote d'Azure... But here's an idea. There will be many pensioners going cold and hungry this winter so how about you invite a few of them down to the south of France with you?

Share some of that Mediterranean sunshine this winter?

The facts are that pensioners are the richest cohort. It's also a fact that 25% of pensioners when assets are included are worth more than £1,000,000.

It could be that the dividing line is cutting out worthy people but surely you can see the idiocy of giving 2,500,000 millionaires some living in the hot spots of Europe £300 a year for fuel?

Can't you think of a better use for this money? A new fully equipped cancer hospital perhaps or maybe fix our prison systems. This is the ideal time for a new government to reset the clock

boulay said:

FrankBooth said:

I'm not paying great attention to the leadership contest but the hostility to Badenoch is very interesting to me. I sense people feel threatened. The centre left would presumably prefer Jenrick. I'm not sure why.

As for Badenoch 'starting an argument in an empty room' where is the evidence she is of that inclination? She's certainly forthright in defending herself I'll give you that.

I find that whenever she seems to be in the papers she is angry about something. This could be the media portraying her like this unfairly and not reporting any positive actions and words by her or it could be that she’s one of those people that finds faults everywhere but no solutions.

Her silence on the PO issue doesn’t suggest she’s able to connect with people and identify things people care about.

I think she would be a bad, negative choice and maybe needs time to develop her political and human skills - she will blow her long term political career if she wins now.

Unfortunately all the options are crap and so the reality is the party needs to elect a placeholder for a couple of years and allow any hidden stars to emerge outside of the forced leadership election we have now.

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:

Good morning everyone.

I've had another little nibble, laying Kemi.

Several interesting FPTs that I missed:

StillWaters said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Taz said:

Cookie said:

turbotubbs said:

Eabhal said:

Cookie said:

While we're on about clickbaity-yet-seemingly-true stories in the headlines, in further evidence that they hate the British in general and their customers in particular, National Trust cafes to go half-vegan:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/06/national-trust-cafe-food-vegan-net-zero-hypocrisy-vote/

It's sad that I see that URL and immediately assume it's nonsense. I hope the Times doesn't go that way.

Is half vegan a bit like half virgin?

The idea is that half the food in the cafes will be vegan. The unsold half, presumably. Presumably because they hate their customers.

Although they like their money.

From the story link:-

National Trust catering is already about 40 per cent plant-based nationally, and the charity said it could increase to 50 per cent within two years if the resolution is passed, while keeping dairy, eggs and meat on the menu.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/06/national-trust-cafe-food-vegan-net-zero-hypocrisy-vote/ (£££)

Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.

But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?

Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.

I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.

NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).

NT properties are far too focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking (or wheeling or cycling) there, and would be likely repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence; that's a lot of lost potential members. They are starting to address that.

Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding articles they have published puffing, for example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.

My wife worked in the kitchens at one of the local National Trust places a few years ago. The whole atmosphere is toxic. Work practices are atrocious, training non-existent beyond what is legally required with food prep, and money rules in every aspect of the operation. Each property is pitted against its neighbours for turnover and profit and management style is like something out of the 1950s. Nor do they listen to the local properties about what sells and what doesn't. It was a real eye opener, all the more so compared to the Co-Op where she went to work after quitting the NT.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

Jonathan said:

The Hunt is on for a serious leader.

I don’t think Hunt’s in the running.

He's the one I really wished was.

I don't buy the stuff about him not appealing to Reform; I think he'd have made a solid and serious Conservative offer on that, and he'd be great at fighting Labour on the economy and winning back LD seats.

The Tories made a big mistake from a long term point of view in choosing Johnson over Hunt, when all the Tory MPs knew damn well that Johnson lacked the character to be PM. Hunt is a good communicator, a serious person and is rooted close to the political centre ground. They would not be in the mess they are now if they had not made the Faustian pact of electing Johnson.

Fairliered said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TimS said:

Some serious flash flooding potential tonight in Wessex and South Wales. Labour’s first natural disaster. Don’t think it’ll be enough to dominate the news or require crisis visits but can’t rule it out.

More overflowing sewage maybe

Are you referring to the weather or the Tory leadership contest?

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

hey, does anybody want to see four moored nuclear subs because we don't know how to decommission them?

Maitland Road, Rosyth: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4T5aP7mqy6DN5u7A8

I quite like Jacob Rees Mogg's idea (if it was him) delivered in the Liz Truss blue sky thinking session that we could plug a nuclear submarine into the grid and get free power.

I have no idea whether it would work, perhaps someone with greater nuclear knowledge than myself (almost everyone here) could opine.

They considered it during the early years of the Troubles. When strikes threatened power production they considered parking a nukesub in Belfast and running cables thru. But there are logistic problems: the reactor doesn't have a handy output socket and getting the cables out is difficult

Everything in a submarine that goes in or out has to fit thru a hatch. The submarines weren't built to allow cables to be run from the hatch to the reactor and I'm not sure the cable diameter was smaller than the hatch diameter. They thought they'd have to carve a hole in the hull.

Perhaps they could have done it eventually (military move fast when needed) but the urgency went away

TLDR: subs aren't built to do this

Once built, a submarine is a horrible thing on which to work.

The reactor is designed for the life of the sub, is one of the first parts installed and the hull gets built around it. Any subsequent attempt to service the reactor involves cutting holes in the side of the rather thick metal hull.

To plug one into the grid, you’d need to find a way to get the entire electrical output onto a few cables that could somehow leave the sub and plug in onshore.

They'd be better off putting the reactor in a hull built for the purpose of delivering power to shore like the Lomonsov.

Everything nuclear takes 3-10x longer and costs 3-10x more than the initial claim so it's an insane idea anyway. As might be expected, being germinated in the haunted apse that is JRM's skull.

GIN1138 said:

Roger said:

GIN1138 said:

Roger said:

rottenborough said:

This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:


Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”

A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”


Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut
Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/labour-ministers-reveal-grave-concerns-about-winter-fuel-payment-cut

Where is the evidence outside of hysterics by the Mail and Express?

If a quarter of pensioners are millionaires it's reasonable to assume that they at least won't miss the £300 gift. Many anecdotally found it an embarrasment or found a charity to give it to. One apparently specifically designed to take it

It told me that Reeves is a serious politician who wants to put things on a sensible footing and gimmicks are not part of her plans.

If only every pensioner was a millionaire with the mansion on the Cote d'Azure... But here's an idea. There will be many pensioners going cold and hungry this winter so how about you invite a few of them down to the south of France with you?

Share some of that Mediterranean sunshine this winter?

The facts are that pensioners are the richest cohort. It's also a fact that 25% of pensioners when assets are included are worth more than £1,000,000.

It could be that the dividing line is cutting out worthy people but surely you can see the idiocy of giving 2,500,000 millionaires some living in the hot spots of Europe £300 a year for fuel?

Can't you think of a better use for this money? A new fully equipped cancer hospital perhaps or maybe fix our prison systems. This is the ideal time for a new government to reset the clock

No one is denying there are some very rich pensioners but there are also some very poor pensioners and lots that are just about managing but may be forced to choose between heating and eating this winter after having their WFA cut.

Anyway, I take it you won't be inviting some of our poorest pensioners to share your mansion with you this winter?

GIN1138 said:

Roger said:

GIN1138 said:

Roger said:

rottenborough said:

This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:


Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”

A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”


Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut
Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/labour-ministers-reveal-grave-concerns-about-winter-fuel-payment-cut

Where is the evidence outside of hysterics by the Mail and Express?

If a quarter of pensioners are millionaires it's reasonable to assume that they at least won't miss the £300 gift. Many anecdotally found it an embarrasment or found a charity to give it to. One apparently specifically designed to take it

It told me that Reeves is a serious politician who wants to put things on a sensible footing and gimmicks are not part of her plans.

If only every pensioner was a millionaire with the mansion on the Cote d'Azure... But here's an idea. There will be many pensioners going cold and hungry this winter so how about you invite a few of them down to the south of France with you?

Share some of that Mediterranean sunshine this winter?

The facts are that pensioners are the richest cohort. It's also a fact that 25% of pensioners when assets are included are worth more than £1,000,000.

It could be that the dividing line is cutting out worthy people but surely you can see the idiocy of giving 2,500,000 millionaires some living in the hot spots of Europe £300 a year for fuel?

Can't you think of a better use for this money? A new fully equipped cancer hospital perhaps or maybe fix our prison systems. This is the ideal time for a new government to reset the clock

No one is denying there are some very rich pensioners but there are also some very poor pensioners and lots that are just about managing but may be forced to choose between heating and eating this winter after having their WFA cut.

Anyway, I take it you won't be inviting some of our poorest pensioners to share your mansion with you this winter?

Stuartinromford said:

Sandpit said:

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

hey, does anybody want to see four moored nuclear subs because we don't know how to decommission them?

Maitland Road, Rosyth: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4T5aP7mqy6DN5u7A8

I quite like Jacob Rees Mogg's idea (if it was him) delivered in the Liz Truss blue sky thinking session that we could plug a nuclear submarine into the grid and get free power.

I have no idea whether it would work, perhaps someone with greater nuclear knowledge than myself (almost everyone here) could opine.

They considered it during the early years of the Troubles. When strikes threatened power production they considered parking a nukesub in Belfast and running cables thru. But there are logistic problems: the reactor doesn't have a handy output socket and getting the cables out is difficult

Everything in a submarine that goes in or out has to fit thru a hatch. The submarines weren't built to allow cables to be run from the hatch to the reactor and I'm not sure the cable diameter was smaller than the hatch diameter. They thought they'd have to carve a hole in the hull.

Perhaps they could have done it eventually (military move fast when needed) but the urgency went away

TLDR: subs aren't built to do this

Once built, a submarine is a horrible thing on which to work.

The reactor is designed for the life of the sub, is one of the first parts installed and the hull gets built around it. Any subsequent attempt to service the reactor involves cutting holes in the side of the rather thick metal hull.

To plug one into the grid, you’d need to find a way to get the entire electrical output onto a few cables that could somehow leave the sub and plug in onshore.

And it doesn't look like there's that much power on one of these things anyway.

If the internet is to be believed, the power output of a submarine reactor is 150-200 MW. That's about a fifth of a gas power station; they tend to be about 1000 MW.

Better than nothing, but not a game changer. Why do I suspect that JRM didn't study much Natural Philosophy at school?

Stuartinromford said:

Sandpit said:

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

hey, does anybody want to see four moored nuclear subs because we don't know how to decommission them?

Maitland Road, Rosyth: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4T5aP7mqy6DN5u7A8

I quite like Jacob Rees Mogg's idea (if it was him) delivered in the Liz Truss blue sky thinking session that we could plug a nuclear submarine into the grid and get free power.

I have no idea whether it would work, perhaps someone with greater nuclear knowledge than myself (almost everyone here) could opine.

They considered it during the early years of the Troubles. When strikes threatened power production they considered parking a nukesub in Belfast and running cables thru. But there are logistic problems: the reactor doesn't have a handy output socket and getting the cables out is difficult

Everything in a submarine that goes in or out has to fit thru a hatch. The submarines weren't built to allow cables to be run from the hatch to the reactor and I'm not sure the cable diameter was smaller than the hatch diameter. They thought they'd have to carve a hole in the hull.

Perhaps they could have done it eventually (military move fast when needed) but the urgency went away

TLDR: subs aren't built to do this

Once built, a submarine is a horrible thing on which to work.

The reactor is designed for the life of the sub, is one of the first parts installed and the hull gets built around it. Any subsequent attempt to service the reactor involves cutting holes in the side of the rather thick metal hull.

To plug one into the grid, you’d need to find a way to get the entire electrical output onto a few cables that could somehow leave the sub and plug in onshore.

And it doesn't look like there's that much power on one of these things anyway.

If the internet is to be believed, the power output of a submarine reactor is 150-200 MW. That's about a fifth of a gas power station; they tend to be about 1000 MW.

Better than nothing, but not a game changer. Why do I suspect that JRM didn't study much Natural Philosophy at school?

MattW said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:

Good morning everyone.

I've had another little nibble, laying Kemi.

Several interesting FPTs that I missed:

StillWaters said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Taz said:

Cookie said:

turbotubbs said:

Eabhal said:

Cookie said:

While we're on about clickbaity-yet-seemingly-true stories in the headlines, in further evidence that they hate the British in general and their customers in particular, National Trust cafes to go half-vegan:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/06/national-trust-cafe-food-vegan-net-zero-hypocrisy-vote/

It's sad that I see that URL and immediately assume it's nonsense. I hope the Times doesn't go that way.

Is half vegan a bit like half virgin?

The idea is that half the food in the cafes will be vegan. The unsold half, presumably. Presumably because they hate their customers.

Although they like their money.

From the story link:-

National Trust catering is already about 40 per cent plant-based nationally, and the charity said it could increase to 50 per cent within two years if the resolution is passed, while keeping dairy, eggs and meat on the menu.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/06/national-trust-cafe-food-vegan-net-zero-hypocrisy-vote/ (£££)

Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.

But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?

Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.

I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.

NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).

NT properties are far too focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking (or wheeling or cycling) there, and would be likely repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence; that's a lot of lost potential members. They are starting to address that.

Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding articles they have published puffing, for example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.

My wife worked in the kitchens at one of the local National Trust places a few years ago. The whole atmosphere is toxic. Work practices are atrocious, training non-existent beyond what is legally required with food prep, and money rules in every aspect of the operation. Each property is pitted against its neighbours for turnover and profit and management style is like something out of the 1950s. Nor do they listen to the local properties about what sells and what doesn't. It was a real eye opener, all the more so compared to the Co-Op where she went to work after quitting the NT.

Do you know if that was characteristic of the organisation or the local property? You are correct that they are very commercial.

(I'm meeting a 35 year NY staff member this week, and I'll ask the question.)

rkrkrk said:

FrankBooth said:

I'm not paying great attention to the leadership contest but the hostility to Badenoch is very interesting to me. I sense people feel threatened. The centre left would presumably prefer Jenrick. I'm not sure why.

As for Badenoch 'starting an argument in an empty room' where is the evidence she is of that inclination? She's certainly forthright in defending herself I'll give you that.

I think Badenoch has a talent for irritating the centre left and generating headlines. That's probably a big asset when it comes to winning Tory leadership (the others try but don't seem to quite have the knack).

Jenrick seems to have had rather a lot of corruption allegations for a man in his forties.

Stuartinromford said:

Sandpit said:

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

hey, does anybody want to see four moored nuclear subs because we don't know how to decommission them?

Maitland Road, Rosyth: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4T5aP7mqy6DN5u7A8

I quite like Jacob Rees Mogg's idea (if it was him) delivered in the Liz Truss blue sky thinking session that we could plug a nuclear submarine into the grid and get free power.

I have no idea whether it would work, perhaps someone with greater nuclear knowledge than myself (almost everyone here) could opine.

They considered it during the early years of the Troubles. When strikes threatened power production they considered parking a nukesub in Belfast and running cables thru. But there are logistic problems: the reactor doesn't have a handy output socket and getting the cables out is difficult

Everything in a submarine that goes in or out has to fit thru a hatch. The submarines weren't built to allow cables to be run from the hatch to the reactor and I'm not sure the cable diameter was smaller than the hatch diameter. They thought they'd have to carve a hole in the hull.

Perhaps they could have done it eventually (military move fast when needed) but the urgency went away

TLDR: subs aren't built to do this

Once built, a submarine is a horrible thing on which to work.

The reactor is designed for the life of the sub, is one of the first parts installed and the hull gets built around it. Any subsequent attempt to service the reactor involves cutting holes in the side of the rather thick metal hull.

To plug one into the grid, you’d need to find a way to get the entire electrical output onto a few cables that could somehow leave the sub and plug in onshore.

And it doesn't look like there's that much power on one of these things anyway.

If the internet is to be believed, the power output of a submarine reactor is 150-200 MW. That's about a fifth of a gas power station; they tend to be about 1000 MW.

Better than nothing, but not a game changer. Why do I suspect that JRM didn't study much Natural Philosophy at school?

Northern_Al said:

I'm old enough to remember the days when the consensus on here was that financial rectitude meant ending the pensioners' gravy train - end the triple lock, no more freebies for this, that and the other. We need to rebalance public spending away from goodies for OAPs and towards tax cuts, including NI, for workers.

However, now that Labour has made a start on this we've changed our minds. They are evil bastards who want to kill the oldies.

Stuartinromford said:

Sandpit said:

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

hey, does anybody want to see four moored nuclear subs because we don't know how to decommission them?

Maitland Road, Rosyth: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4T5aP7mqy6DN5u7A8

I quite like Jacob Rees Mogg's idea (if it was him) delivered in the Liz Truss blue sky thinking session that we could plug a nuclear submarine into the grid and get free power.

I have no idea whether it would work, perhaps someone with greater nuclear knowledge than myself (almost everyone here) could opine.

They considered it during the early years of the Troubles. When strikes threatened power production they considered parking a nukesub in Belfast and running cables thru. But there are logistic problems: the reactor doesn't have a handy output socket and getting the cables out is difficult

Everything in a submarine that goes in or out has to fit thru a hatch. The submarines weren't built to allow cables to be run from the hatch to the reactor and I'm not sure the cable diameter was smaller than the hatch diameter. They thought they'd have to carve a hole in the hull.

Perhaps they could have done it eventually (military move fast when needed) but the urgency went away

TLDR: subs aren't built to do this

Once built, a submarine is a horrible thing on which to work.

The reactor is designed for the life of the sub, is one of the first parts installed and the hull gets built around it. Any subsequent attempt to service the reactor involves cutting holes in the side of the rather thick metal hull.

To plug one into the grid, you’d need to find a way to get the entire electrical output onto a few cables that could somehow leave the sub and plug in onshore.

And it doesn't look like there's that much power on one of these things anyway.

If the internet is to be believed, the power output of a submarine reactor is 150-200 MW. That's about a fifth of a gas power station; they tend to be about 1000 MW.

Better than nothing, but not a game changer. Why do I suspect that JRM didn't study much Natural Philosophy at school?