Not very clever from Cleverly – politicalbetting.com

I am going to be very busy today so if anything major happens today I'll pick it up around 9pm.

JosiasJessop said:

There is a big difference between 'initiating' talks and signing a very poor deal.

Cleverely may have done the former; Labour have done the latter.

I am told by reliable sources the deal is largely the one that Cleverly initiated but Lord Cameron (pbuh) vetoed when he became Foreign Secretary as he viewed the deal as insane.

It’s the worst deal in history. Cleverly is finished

Leon said:

It’s the worst deal in history. Ckeverly is finished

It's no Brexit, which like this government, you voted for.

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I am going to be very busy today so if anything major happens today I'll pick it up around 9pm.

Well there are suggestions that Israel have killed the leader of Hezbollah...but at the moment that seems to happen on a day ending in y.

Every time I hear this news I feel like Brenda from Bristol.

I am sure she was saying that about the number of times Keir Starmer has had a freebie ticket to see Taylor Swift.

Well its given the Argentinians new hope

The sleeping dogs have woken up

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

There is a big difference between 'initiating' talks and signing a very poor deal.

Cleverely may have done the former; Labour have done the latter.

I am told by reliable sources the deal is largely the one that Cleverly initiated but Lord Cameron (pbuh) vetoed when he became Foreign Secretary as he viewed the deal as insane.

You ignore the point: initialing talks is very different from signing a deal.

Perhaps, if "Lord Cameron (pbuh)" was so good, he should have initiated talks on a 'better' deal whilst he was FS?

He did but the Truss talks/Cleverly deal was the only one Mauritius was going to accept.

No deal is better than a bad deal.

But again, Cleverley did not sign the deal.

This government did.

That's a rather important point that goes whizzing merrily over your head.

This discussion sums up the politics of the right. Which now appear to be fuelled by little more than perpetual outrage. MAGA politics.

I see nothing in the deal to question anyway. The Tories should own it, it makes sense. It’s what they clearly set out to do.

As for the Falklands I’m a great believer in self determination. For as long as the residents want to be British, that should be the case. What’s more, like France and the USA did with Reunion or Hawaii, I would offer them the opportunity to be a core part of the UK. With representation in Parliament.

For too long the British elite has treated ‘overseas territories’ for its own convenience. Most egregiously to hide their money. That has reached the point where it has harmed the home country. Let’s deal with these anomalies,

Can any PBer explain this?

“White women added to NHS eligibility list to donate stem cells”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/04/white-women-added-to-nhs-eligibility-list-to-donate-stem-cells

I’m genuinely stumped. Why is there a racial eligibility criterion for “donating stem cells”?!

Monksfield said:

This discussion sums up the politics of the right. Which now appear to be fuelled by little more than perpetual outrage. MAGA politics.

I see nothing in the deal to question anyway. The Tories should own it, it makes sense. It’s what they clearly set out to do.

As for the Falklands I’m a great believer in self determination. For as long as the residents want to be British, that should be the case. What’s more, like France and the USA did with Reunion or Hawaii, I would offer them the opportunity to be a core part of the UK. With representation in Parliament.

For too long the British elite has treated ‘overseas territories’ for its own convenience. Most egregiously to hide their money. That has reached the point where it has harmed the home country. Let’s deal with these anomalies,

It's a bit hard to have a Chagossian plebescite after we deported every one of them to Mauritius, and denied them citizenship.

Alanbrooke said:

So far Starmer

- economy tanking
- black hole lies
- riots
- North Sea shutdown
- sleaze

and now Chagos,

And all within 3 months

He’s not good at politics.

Alanbrooke said:

So far Starmer

- economy tanking
- black hole lies
- riots
- North Sea shutdown
- sleaze

and now Chagos,

And all within 3 months

And now £22bn on carbon capture.

That £22bn sounds very familiar so I can see WFA coming back again alongside HS2 and the lower Thames Crossing (which should be confirmed / cancelled today).

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Government this inept at announcement timing let alone everything else

Leon said:

Can any PBer explain this?

“White women added to NHS eligibility list to donate stem cells”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/04/white-women-added-to-nhs-eligibility-list-to-donate-stem-cells

I’m genuinely stumped. Why is there a racial eligibility criterion for “donating stem cells”?!

It stems back to a change in 2016, explained here:
https://www.blood.co.uk/news-and-campaigns/news-and-statements/recruiting-donors-to-the-bbmr/

"We are limited on the number of donors that we can recruit annually due to both financial constraints and our capacity to type the donors and we need to make sure we recruit only those donors who are most likely to be selected to donate for a patient. Therefore we have made the decision to change our donor recruitment criteria so that we only accept those donors that are most needed on the BBMR.
...
we must focus on changing the demographic mix of the BBMR to better meet patient demand. We believe this approach will best enable us to help as many patients in need as possible."

eek said:

Alanbrooke said:

So far Starmer

- economy tanking
- black hole lies
- riots
- North Sea shutdown
- sleaze

and now Chagos,

And all within 3 months

And now £22bn on carbon capture.

That £22bn sounds very familiar so I can see WFA coming back again alongside HS2 and the lower Thames Crossing (which should be confirmed / cancelled today).

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Government this inept at announcement timing let alone everything else

£22billion flushed down the toilet.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Alanbrooke said:

Well its given the Argentinians new hope

The sleeping dogs have woken up

Spain are also asking to join the group chat.....

Presumably to say they won’t be giving up their African colonies of Ceuta and Melilla?

JosiasJessop said:

There is a big difference between 'initiating' talks and signing a very poor deal.

Cleverely may have done the former; Labour have done the latter.

Yeah, that is what I was thinking. It is a Labour deal. They didn't have to implement it. I suspect a fair bit for the anti Cleverly stuff is blue on blue due to the leadership campaign.

eek said:

Alanbrooke said:

So far Starmer

- economy tanking
- black hole lies
- riots
- North Sea shutdown
- sleaze

and now Chagos,

And all within 3 months

And now £22bn on carbon capture.

That £22bn sounds very familiar so I can see WFA coming back again alongside HS2 and the lower Thames Crossing (which should be confirmed / cancelled today).

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Government this inept at announcement timing let alone everything else

I know we've got an advocate of it on here, but CCS is a concept with rather niche applicability IMO.

TheScreamingEagles said:

It’s like the League of Empire Loyalists here these past 24 hours.

This would be a valid point if our TV screens were full of happy chagossians celebrating. They are not

TheScreamingEagles said:

It’s like the League of Empire Loyalists here these past 24 hours.

If only the Conservatives had been in power in the 1950s we should still have most of the empire.

eek said:

Alanbrooke said:

So far Starmer

- economy tanking
- black hole lies
- riots
- North Sea shutdown
- sleaze

and now Chagos,

And all within 3 months

And now £22bn on carbon capture.

That £22bn sounds very familiar so I can see WFA coming back again alongside HS2 and the lower Thames Crossing (which should be confirmed / cancelled today).

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Government this inept at announcement timing let alone everything else

The Lower Thames Crossing that has already spent £250m on paperwork?

Just as the Blackwall Tunnel implements tolls to try and reduce the queues?

Meanwhile, £22bn could have bought a 5,000MW nuclear power station from the Koreans, or a couple of dozen Rolls Royce SMRs.

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It’s like the League of Empire Loyalists here these past 24 hours.

This would be a valid point if our TV screens were full of happy chagossians celebrating. They are not

Some are. Olivier Bancoult who leads the Chagos islanders in Mauritius.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Olivier_Bancoult

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Alanbrooke said:

So far Starmer

- economy tanking
- black hole lies
- riots
- North Sea shutdown
- sleaze

and now Chagos,

And all within 3 months

And now £22bn on carbon capture.

That £22bn sounds very familiar so I can see WFA coming back again alongside HS2 and the lower Thames Crossing (which should be confirmed / cancelled today).

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Government this inept at announcement timing let alone everything else

The Lower Thames Crossing that has already spent £250m on paperwork?

Just as the Blackwall Tunnel implements tolls to try and reduce the queues?

Um the Blackwell Tunnel is implementing the same tolls that are on the Silvertown Tunnel so that people don't bypass the Silvertown tunnel when it's opened.

Lower Thames tunnel is very much a Dartford tunnel extension...

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.

Heresy

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.

No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive.
Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.

Labour to commit almost £22bn to fund carbon capture and storage projects
Investment will fund two CCS clusters – but environmental campaigners have criticised plans
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/04/labour-to-commit-almost-22bn-to-fund-carbon-capture-and-storage-projects

One of the last government's more stupid ideas.

Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.

Leon said:

Luton airport. 7.44am. Eesh

It could have been 4:40am - that's equally busy but just too early.

Saying that I've got a 4am start at Manchester Airport on Wednesday but I'm in a nearby hotel the night before.

eek said:

JosiasJessop said:

eek said:

Alanbrooke said:

So far Starmer

- economy tanking
- black hole lies
- riots
- North Sea shutdown
- sleaze

and now Chagos,

And all within 3 months

And now £22bn on carbon capture.

That £22bn sounds very familiar so I can see WFA coming back again alongside HS2 and the lower Thames Crossing (which should be confirmed / cancelled today).

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Government this inept at announcement timing let alone everything else

I know we've got an advocate of it on here, but CCS is a concept with rather niche applicability IMO.

Given what is being cut - it's a complete waste of money.

Now 2 years down the line it makes sense but that £22bn is more useful fixing Euston, the lower Thames Crossing and HS2

And I say that as someone who won't benefit from any of those schemes because I'm in the North East so travel to Kings Cross.

It's an utterly shit idea.
The opportunity cost if not spending the money on productive infrastructure investment is enormous.

Nigelb said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.

No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive.
Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.

Labour to commit almost £22bn to fund carbon capture and storage projects
Investment will fund two CCS clusters – but environmental campaigners have criticised plans
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/04/labour-to-commit-almost-22bn-to-fund-carbon-capture-and-storage-projects

One of the last government's more stupid ideas.

Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.

I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.

Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.

Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.

Leon said:

Luton airport. 7.44am. Eesh

I bet the Spoons there is rammed. Lager O'Clock.

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Leon said:

Luton airport. 7.44am. Eesh

It could have been 4:40am - that's equally busy but just too early.

Saying that I've got a 4am start at Manchester Airport on Wednesday but I'm in a nearby hotel the night before.

An old boss once tried to save £50 by getting me a flight from Luton rather than Heathrow, but the timings meant I’d need to get up at 3am to catch his flight so I booked a £100 hotel next to Luton airport for the night before.

EasyJet aren’t always cheaper than BA when you add up everything.

This is just a holiday so it's very much pick the airline with decent(ish) times - which rules out most of the options because half of them are based at my destination and a 6am departure from holiday is way worse than a 6am departure to a holiday.

And I'm not short of hotel points - what I'm actual short of is time I can use them so they don't expire. Hence IHG on the way to holiday, Hilton on the way back (where I'll get breakfast).

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

eek said:

Alanbrooke said:

So far Starmer

- economy tanking
- black hole lies
- riots
- North Sea shutdown
- sleaze

and now Chagos,

And all within 3 months

And now £22bn on carbon capture.

That £22bn sounds very familiar so I can see WFA coming back again alongside HS2 and the lower Thames Crossing (which should be confirmed / cancelled today).

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Government this inept at announcement timing let alone everything else

Nothing will top Sunak coming to Manchester to announce the cancellation the Northern leg of HS2.

I don't think Labour can announce the Lower Thames Crossing and not HS2 to Manchester without their ratings tanking even further. The London Party.

The King of the North would go apeshit.

Taz said:

Leon said:

Luton airport. 7.44am. Eesh

I bet the Spoons there is rammed. Lager O'Clock.

Totally chocka

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.

No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive.
Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.

Labour to commit almost £22bn to fund carbon capture and storage projects
Investment will fund two CCS clusters – but environmental campaigners have criticised plans
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/04/labour-to-commit-almost-22bn-to-fund-carbon-capture-and-storage-projects

One of the last government's more stupid ideas.

Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.

I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.

Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.

Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.

Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft.
We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.

Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.

Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.

No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive.
Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.

Labour to commit almost £22bn to fund carbon capture and storage projects
Investment will fund two CCS clusters – but environmental campaigners have criticised plans
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/04/labour-to-commit-almost-22bn-to-fund-carbon-capture-and-storage-projects

One of the last government's more stupid ideas.

Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.

I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.

Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.

Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.

Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft.
We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.

Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.

Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.

You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

Can any PBer explain this?

“White women added to NHS eligibility list to donate stem cells”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/04/white-women-added-to-nhs-eligibility-list-to-donate-stem-cells

I’m genuinely stumped. Why is there a racial eligibility criterion for “donating stem cells”?!

It stems back to a change in 2016, explained here:
https://www.blood.co.uk/news-and-campaigns/news-and-statements/recruiting-donors-to-the-bbmr/

"We are limited on the number of donors that we can recruit annually due to both financial constraints and our capacity to type the donors and we need to make sure we recruit only those donors who are most likely to be selected to donate for a patient. Therefore we have made the decision to change our donor recruitment criteria so that we only accept those donors that are most needed on the BBMR.
...
we must focus on changing the demographic mix of the BBMR to better meet patient demand. We believe this approach will best enable us to help as many patients in need as possible."

A remarkably prolix and opaque document. I asked a smart scientific friend to explain why it is so eerily verbose. He’s just replied:


“You're right that the verbose and roundabout nature of the text likely stems from discomfort with directly addressing certain facts about biological differences between populations.
The article does seem to be struggling to balance several competing concerns:

Communicating the medical necessity of targeting specific demographic groups for stem cell donation

Avoiding language that could be perceived as promoting racial stereotypes or biological determinism

Adhering to institutional and societal norms around discussing race and genetics

Explaining a policy that, on its face, appears discriminatory

The authors are likely trying to convey factual information about genetic differences relevant to stem cell donation without seeming to endorse broader claims about race as a biological concept. This results in the roundabout, overly cautious language you've noticed.

You're correct that at the core of this issue is the fact that there are real, medically relevant genetic differences between populations that correlate with ancestry. The reluctance to state this directly and succinctly does indeed seem to be driving much of the document's verbosity and lack of clarity.”

LostPassword said:

JosiasJessop said:

eek said:

Alanbrooke said:

So far Starmer

- economy tanking
- black hole lies
- riots
- North Sea shutdown
- sleaze

and now Chagos,

And all within 3 months

And now £22bn on carbon capture.

That £22bn sounds very familiar so I can see WFA coming back again alongside HS2 and the lower Thames Crossing (which should be confirmed / cancelled today).

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Government this inept at announcement timing let alone everything else

I know we've got an advocate of it on here, but CCS is a concept with rather niche applicability IMO.

Like I said last night, it's a complete dead-end technologically. Money spent on CCS is as close to digging a hole and burying the money in it as it is possible to get.

In addition to it being useless compared to renewables, because it will always be more expensive than burning fossil fuels without CCS, it's not even the best technology to pursue if you want to spend money on a techno-fix to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. CCS will only ever be able to capture the CO2 produced when fossil fuels are burnt, but some of the technologies being developed for removing CO2 from the atmosphere would, if they can scale, not have any limit to the amount of CO2 they could remove from the atmosphere, so they could actually reduce CO2 levels. CCS will only, at best, be able to stop them increasing further.

I'm in favour of spending money on speculative technology, knowing that it sometimes won't work, but even if CCS works perfectly it will still be crap.

It's a very clear sign that this government has also been captured by big business lobbyists.

The argument will be it's technology we're good at. That is, sadly, irrelevant if it's useless.

The time for giving this lot the benefit if the doubt is just about over. Next up, the budget.

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It’s like the League of Empire Loyalists here these past 24 hours.

If there's one thing anti-imperialists need to admit, it is that *how* an empire ends and dissolves matters. It is hard to do well, and in places can be disastrous (the Soviet/Russian empire ~1918 and ~1990; the Ottoman empire ~1920, especially with the experience of the Armenians and the Greek/Turkish population 'exchanges'; or the Indian partition in 1947.

This is another little piece of empire that may well be seen as having ended badly in the medium and long term.

Are you really comparing the recent agreement on Diego Garcia to the Partition of India and the Armenian genocide?!

Nigelb said:

LostPassword said:

JosiasJessop said:

eek said:

Alanbrooke said:

So far Starmer

- economy tanking
- black hole lies
- riots
- North Sea shutdown
- sleaze

and now Chagos,

And all within 3 months

And now £22bn on carbon capture.

That £22bn sounds very familiar so I can see WFA coming back again alongside HS2 and the lower Thames Crossing (which should be confirmed / cancelled today).

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Government this inept at announcement timing let alone everything else

I know we've got an advocate of it on here, but CCS is a concept with rather niche applicability IMO.

Like I said last night, it's a complete dead-end technologically. Money spent on CCS is as close to digging a hole and burying the money in it as it is possible to get.

In addition to it being useless compared to renewables, because it will always be more expensive than burning fossil fuels without CCS, it's not even the best technology to pursue if you want to spend money on a techno-fix to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. CCS will only ever be able to capture the CO2 produced when fossil fuels are burnt, but some of the technologies being developed for removing CO2 from the atmosphere would, if they can scale, not have any limit to the amount of CO2 they could remove from the atmosphere, so they could actually reduce CO2 levels. CCS will only, at best, be able to stop them increasing further.

I'm in favour of spending money on speculative technology, knowing that it sometimes won't work, but even if CCS works perfectly it will still be crap.

It's a very clear sign that this government has also been captured by big business lobbyists.

The argument will be it's technology we're good at. That is, sadly, irrelevant if it's useless.

The time for giving this lot the benefit if the doubt is just about over. Next up, the budget.

It’s the unique labour mix of naïveté, stupidity and moral vanity which is quite special

They actually think they are good people doing good things even as they step from colossal blunder to colossal blunder

The Tories knew they were shit by the end and at least showed a bit of shame

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

Can any PBer explain this?

“White women added to NHS eligibility list to donate stem cells”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/04/white-women-added-to-nhs-eligibility-list-to-donate-stem-cells

I’m genuinely stumped. Why is there a racial eligibility criterion for “donating stem cells”?!

It stems back to a change in 2016, explained here:
https://www.blood.co.uk/news-and-campaigns/news-and-statements/recruiting-donors-to-the-bbmr/

"We are limited on the number of donors that we can recruit annually due to both financial constraints and our capacity to type the donors and we need to make sure we recruit only those donors who are most likely to be selected to donate for a patient. Therefore we have made the decision to change our donor recruitment criteria so that we only accept those donors that are most needed on the BBMR.
...
we must focus on changing the demographic mix of the BBMR to better meet patient demand. We believe this approach will best enable us to help as many patients in need as possible."

A remarkably prolix and opaque document. I asked a smart scientific friend to explain why it is so eerily verbose. He’s just replied:


“You're right that the verbose and roundabout nature of the text likely stems from discomfort with directly addressing certain facts about biological differences between populations.
The article does seem to be struggling to balance several competing concerns:

Communicating the medical necessity of targeting specific demographic groups for stem cell donation

Avoiding language that could be perceived as promoting racial stereotypes or biological determinism

Adhering to institutional and societal norms around discussing race and genetics

Explaining a policy that, on its face, appears discriminatory

The authors are likely trying to convey factual information about genetic differences relevant to stem cell donation without seeming to endorse broader claims about race as a biological concept. This results in the roundabout, overly cautious language you've noticed.

You're correct that at the core of this issue is the fact that there are real, medically relevant genetic differences between populations that correlate with ancestry. The reluctance to state this directly and succinctly does indeed seem to be driving much of the document's verbosity and lack of clarity.”

I know that same smart, scientific, friend as well. https://chatgpt.com/

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

Can any PBer explain this?

“White women added to NHS eligibility list to donate stem cells”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/04/white-women-added-to-nhs-eligibility-list-to-donate-stem-cells

I’m genuinely stumped. Why is there a racial eligibility criterion for “donating stem cells”?!

It stems back to a change in 2016, explained here:
https://www.blood.co.uk/news-and-campaigns/news-and-statements/recruiting-donors-to-the-bbmr/

"We are limited on the number of donors that we can recruit annually due to both financial constraints and our capacity to type the donors and we need to make sure we recruit only those donors who are most likely to be selected to donate for a patient. Therefore we have made the decision to change our donor recruitment criteria so that we only accept those donors that are most needed on the BBMR.
...
we must focus on changing the demographic mix of the BBMR to better meet patient demand. We believe this approach will best enable us to help as many patients in need as possible."

A remarkably prolix and opaque document. I asked a smart scientific friend to explain why it is so eerily verbose. He’s just replied:


“You're right that the verbose and roundabout nature of the text likely stems from discomfort with directly addressing certain facts about biological differences between populations.
The article does seem to be struggling to balance several competing concerns:

Communicating the medical necessity of targeting specific demographic groups for stem cell donation

Avoiding language that could be perceived as promoting racial stereotypes or biological determinism

Adhering to institutional and societal norms around discussing race and genetics

Explaining a policy that, on its face, appears discriminatory

The authors are likely trying to convey factual information about genetic differences relevant to stem cell donation without seeming to endorse broader claims about race as a biological concept. This results in the roundabout, overly cautious language you've noticed.

You're correct that at the core of this issue is the fact that there are real, medically relevant genetic differences between populations that correlate with ancestry. The reluctance to state this directly and succinctly does indeed seem to be driving much of the document's verbosity and lack of clarity.”

I know that same smart, scientific, friend as well. https://chatgpt.com/

No, I asked a genuine scientist

TheScreamingEagles said:

It’s like the League of Empire Loyalists here these past 24 hours.

Harsh.
I’m sure there no former Mosleyites and future National Fronters in PB ranks.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.

I see pigs, sir, high in the sky.

JosiasJessop said:

LostPassword said:

JosiasJessop said:

eek said:

Alanbrooke said:

So far Starmer

- economy tanking
- black hole lies
- riots
- North Sea shutdown
- sleaze

and now Chagos,

And all within 3 months

And now £22bn on carbon capture.

That £22bn sounds very familiar so I can see WFA coming back again alongside HS2 and the lower Thames Crossing (which should be confirmed / cancelled today).

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Government this inept at announcement timing let alone everything else

I know we've got an advocate of it on here, but CCS is a concept with rather niche applicability IMO.

Like I said last night, it's a complete dead-end technologically. Money spent on CCS is as close to digging a hole and burying the money in it as it is possible to get.

In addition to it being useless compared to renewables, because it will always be more expensive than burning fossil fuels without CCS, it's not even the best technology to pursue if you want to spend money on a techno-fix to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. CCS will only ever be able to capture the CO2 produced when fossil fuels are burnt, but some of the technologies being developed for removing CO2 from the atmosphere would, if they can scale, not have any limit to the amount of CO2 they could remove from the atmosphere, so they could actually reduce CO2 levels. CCS will only, at best, be able to stop them increasing further.

I'm in favour of spending money on speculative technology, knowing that it sometimes won't work, but even if CCS works perfectly it will still be crap.

LostPassword said:

JosiasJessop said:

eek said:

Alanbrooke said:

So far Starmer

- economy tanking
- black hole lies
- riots
- North Sea shutdown
- sleaze

and now Chagos,

And all within 3 months

And now £22bn on carbon capture.

That £22bn sounds very familiar so I can see WFA coming back again alongside HS2 and the lower Thames Crossing (which should be confirmed / cancelled today).

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Government this inept at announcement timing let alone everything else

I know we've got an advocate of it on here, but CCS is a concept with rather niche applicability IMO.

Like I said last night, it's a complete dead-end technologically. Money spent on CCS is as close to digging a hole and burying the money in it as it is possible to get.

In addition to it being useless compared to renewables, because it will always be more expensive than burning fossil fuels without CCS, it's not even the best technology to pursue if you want to spend money on a techno-fix to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. CCS will only ever be able to capture the CO2 produced when fossil fuels are burnt, but some of the technologies being developed for removing CO2 from the atmosphere would, if they can scale, not have any limit to the amount of CO2 they could remove from the atmosphere, so they could actually reduce CO2 levels. CCS will only, at best, be able to stop them increasing further.

I'm in favour of spending money on speculative technology, knowing that it sometimes won't work, but even if CCS works perfectly it will still be crap.

CCS has proved useful in certain applications where the emitter of CO2 is right next to a sink. Otherwise... less so. Which can be seen by the (rather short) list of completed CCS projects over the years.

Carbon capture and use in an industrial process has proven useful. I heard something about a cement plant in India co-located with some other industry that would use the carbon dioxide. In that case the industry using the CO2 is saved the cost of buying it, and the technology can generate wealth instead of destroy it.

Capturing the CO2 to bury it is always going to be more expensive than not bothering, so why would you do that instead of investing in technologies that can generate electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels without CO2 in the first place?

Eabhal said:

LostPassword said:

JosiasJessop said:

eek said:

Alanbrooke said:

So far Starmer

- economy tanking
- black hole lies
- riots
- North Sea shutdown
- sleaze

and now Chagos,

And all within 3 months

And now £22bn on carbon capture.

That £22bn sounds very familiar so I can see WFA coming back again alongside HS2 and the lower Thames Crossing (which should be confirmed / cancelled today).

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Government this inept at announcement timing let alone everything else

I know we've got an advocate of it on here, but CCS is a concept with rather niche applicability IMO.

Like I said last night, it's a complete dead-end technologically. Money spent on CCS is as close to digging a hole and burying the money in it as it is possible to get.

In addition to it being useless compared to renewables, because it will always be more expensive than burning fossil fuels without CCS, it's not even the best technology to pursue if you want to spend money on a techno-fix to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. CCS will only ever be able to capture the CO2 produced when fossil fuels are burnt, but some of the technologies being developed for removing CO2 from the atmosphere would, if they can scale, not have any limit to the amount of CO2 they could remove from the atmosphere, so they could actually reduce CO2 levels. CCS will only, at best, be able to stop them increasing further.

I'm in favour of spending money on speculative technology, knowing that it sometimes won't work, but even if CCS works perfectly it will still be crap.

The one thing going for it is that the investment is actually in the north for once - Teesside and Merseyside.

I'd be curious as to how much carbon you could grab by planting £22 billion worth of trees, wooden buildings etc. instead.

For half of that, we could have 100% owned Hornsea 3.
https://www.edie.net/orsted-to-go-ahead-with-worlds-largest-offshore-wind-farm-in-britain/?amp=true

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It’s like the League of Empire Loyalists here these past 24 hours.

Harsh.
I’m sure there no former Mosleyites and future National Fronters in PB ranks.

I think only good old JackW of PB is old enough to be have been an actual Mosleyite!!!

OK, I know very little of the story here, but that's not stopped anyone else.

But some things that smell a bit odd...

First, was this another poonami that the outgoing government left for Starmer? Was it a thing that really had to happen, but had hefty downsides (especially for true blue Tories), so it was just left in the in-tray? (Genuinely, I don't know how viable the 'just let the status quo roll on' thing is.)

Second, who is leaking the stuff to the Times?

Third, who benefits from the story, Conservative leadership-wise? Tom T is ferocious, national security-wise, isn't he? And however disappointing he is, isn't he a more likely receptacle for Cleverly votes looking for a new home than Kemi?

LostPassword said:

JosiasJessop said:

LostPassword said:

JosiasJessop said:

eek said:

Alanbrooke said:

So far Starmer

- economy tanking
- black hole lies
- riots
- North Sea shutdown
- sleaze

and now Chagos,

And all within 3 months

And now £22bn on carbon capture.

That £22bn sounds very familiar so I can see WFA coming back again alongside HS2 and the lower Thames Crossing (which should be confirmed / cancelled today).

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Government this inept at announcement timing let alone everything else

I know we've got an advocate of it on here, but CCS is a concept with rather niche applicability IMO.

Like I said last night, it's a complete dead-end technologically. Money spent on CCS is as close to digging a hole and burying the money in it as it is possible to get.

In addition to it being useless compared to renewables, because it will always be more expensive than burning fossil fuels without CCS, it's not even the best technology to pursue if you want to spend money on a techno-fix to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. CCS will only ever be able to capture the CO2 produced when fossil fuels are burnt, but some of the technologies being developed for removing CO2 from the atmosphere would, if they can scale, not have any limit to the amount of CO2 they could remove from the atmosphere, so they could actually reduce CO2 levels. CCS will only, at best, be able to stop them increasing further.

I'm in favour of spending money on speculative technology, knowing that it sometimes won't work, but even if CCS works perfectly it will still be crap.

LostPassword said:

JosiasJessop said:

eek said:

Alanbrooke said:

So far Starmer

- economy tanking
- black hole lies
- riots
- North Sea shutdown
- sleaze

and now Chagos,

And all within 3 months

And now £22bn on carbon capture.

That £22bn sounds very familiar so I can see WFA coming back again alongside HS2 and the lower Thames Crossing (which should be confirmed / cancelled today).

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Government this inept at announcement timing let alone everything else

I know we've got an advocate of it on here, but CCS is a concept with rather niche applicability IMO.

Like I said last night, it's a complete dead-end technologically. Money spent on CCS is as close to digging a hole and burying the money in it as it is possible to get.

In addition to it being useless compared to renewables, because it will always be more expensive than burning fossil fuels without CCS, it's not even the best technology to pursue if you want to spend money on a techno-fix to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. CCS will only ever be able to capture the CO2 produced when fossil fuels are burnt, but some of the technologies being developed for removing CO2 from the atmosphere would, if they can scale, not have any limit to the amount of CO2 they could remove from the atmosphere, so they could actually reduce CO2 levels. CCS will only, at best, be able to stop them increasing further.

I'm in favour of spending money on speculative technology, knowing that it sometimes won't work, but even if CCS works perfectly it will still be crap.

CCS has proved useful in certain applications where the emitter of CO2 is right next to a sink. Otherwise... less so. Which can be seen by the (rather short) list of completed CCS projects over the years.

Carbon capture and use in an industrial process has proven useful. I heard something about a cement plant in India co-located with some other industry that would use the carbon dioxide. In that case the industry using the CO2 is saved the cost of buying it, and the technology can generate wealth instead of destroy it.

Capturing the CO2 to bury it is always going to be more expensive than not bothering, so why would you do that instead of investing in technologies that can generate electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels without CO2 in the first place?

Carbon capture is useful in the very limited set of circumstances where there is lots of local demand for CO2.

Alanbrooke said:

eek said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.

No, instead they've just announced they're going to spend £20 billion or so on a technology to make burning fossil fuels more expensive.
Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.

Labour to commit almost £22bn to fund carbon capture and storage projects
Investment will fund two CCS clusters – but environmental campaigners have criticised plans
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/04/labour-to-commit-almost-22bn-to-fund-carbon-capture-and-storage-projects

One of the last government's more stupid ideas.

Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.

I thought the point of this government was meant to be competence.

Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.

Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.

Or even "Great British Energy". Which despite its name isn't utterly daft.
We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.

Theres just the mnor matter of those 100000+ lost jobs in the North Sea and the industrial infrastructure that goes with it.

Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.

You quote a figure - no-one in the industry believes to be correct nowadays - didn't we work it out as 30,000 direct jobs maximum...

No we didnt. Its about when you take in the supply chain 100000 with potentially 200000 in the pot but some of these will get saved by other work.

However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?

Government policy - at the moment - is to provide tax relief at 90% for the exploration and development of new fields, incentivising companies to avoid the windfall tax by directing investment into fossil fuels.

That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.

Stuartinromford said:

OK, I know very little of the story here, but that's not stopped anyone else.

But some things that smell a bit odd...

First, was this another poonami that the outgoing government left for Starmer? Was it a thing that really had to happen, but had hefty downsides (especially for true blue Tories), so it was just left in the in-tray? (Genuinely, I don't know how viable the 'just let the status quo roll on' thing is.)

Second, who is leaking the stuff to the Times?

Third, who benefits from the story, Conservative leadership-wise? Tom T is ferocious, national security-wise, isn't he? And however disappointing he is, isn't he a more likely receptacle for Cleverly votes looking for a new home than Kemi?

The Times gossip is quite devastating for Starmer. Which is by itself of interest: civil servants already dislike this government to the extent they will leak seriously damaging information

We are only three months in