Starmer achieves in 5 months what it took the Tories 14 years – politicalbetting.com

Leon said:

carnforth said:

Omnium said:

I'll stick my neck out.

Assertion: Shecorns88 is a @Leon bot. He's talked about such a thing for a while, but I'm pretty sure he's done it.

Heathener has been mooted. It was not denied. But then there were those who claimed Heathener was Leon.

It's the absolute certainty which is unnerving. Like a lefty HYFUD but with less self-reflection.

Like most bots it never denies.

I’m deeply flattered that you believe I have the multitasking skills to lead my busy life AND create and nurture entire new sock puppet characters on PB

Consider, I am in Santa Marta, Colombia, on the Caribbean coast, I only arrived yesterday (so: major jet lag). Tomorrow I go onwards up the River Maddalena, one of the great rivers of the world

I have just written a piece for the Gazette this morning. I am also mapping out TWO major year-long flint projects, using various assistants, and also reading related books (like W G Sebald). I am also running the general chores of the self employed (taxes, etc), keeping up with friends and family daily and also exploring Colombia for my Gazette Travel piece (and researching the local history). And finally I am arranging trips for earlier next year, including Thailand, Cambodia and Uruguay

Trust me. I do not have time to create bots on PB

Dopermean said:

RobD said:

.

Dopermean said:

Dopermean said:

BlancheLivermore said:

So Starmer's deportations aren't what any traditional use of the English language would describe as deportations?

We're paying a tiny, tiny percentage of illegal immigrants to go home to safe countries

And Starmer claims that he's deported loads of illegals

This isn't difficult,
If you apply for asylum and your country is deemed safe then your asylum application fails and you are returned to your safe country.
If you apply for asylum and you are deemed to be at risk in your home country then your asylum application is successful.
It would be illegal to return an asylum applicant to an unsafe country

That Labour is now processing asylum applicants and returning people just shows how simple it could have been for the Conservatives if they hadn't chosen not to process asylum applicants and instead wasted money on housing them in socially deprived areas where the EDL etc could wind up the locals.

In this case they weren’t asylum seekers, rather those that have overstayed their visa.

Even easier to deport then.
At £3k to avoid the cost of the legal process, the £700m for Rwanda policy could have been spent on returning 200,000 overstayers.

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Even if Labour does remain in office it will be scraping home in a hung parliament propped up by the LDs most likely, the price of which will be an end to the tractor tax and restored WFPs. The cost of living crisis is hitting Labour as much as other incumbent governments across the world but Starmer and Reeves have only exacerbated the impact by their decision making

At the moment Labour look like they will get absolutely tonked, but unless Elon can muster a coup they have four and a half years to pull it back. Meanwhile the Conservatives are in chaos and the Tory media are caressing Nigel around the trouser area.

HYUFD said:

Ratters said:

HYUFD said:

Even if Labour does remain in office it will be scraping home in a hung parliament propped up by the LDs most likely, the price of which will be an end to the tractor tax and restored WFPs. The cost of living crisis is hitting Labour as much as other incumbent governments across the world but Starmer and Reeves have only exacerbated the impact by their decision making

The Lib Dems would be mad to focus on those policies being the price of support. They would focus elsewhere.

The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.

They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again

Eabhal said:

HYUFD said:

Ratters said:

HYUFD said:

Even if Labour does remain in office it will be scraping home in a hung parliament propped up by the LDs most likely, the price of which will be an end to the tractor tax and restored WFPs. The cost of living crisis is hitting Labour as much as other incumbent governments across the world but Starmer and Reeves have only exacerbated the impact by their decision making

The Lib Dems would be mad to focus on those policies being the price of support. They would focus elsewhere.

The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.

They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again

Correct. They are virulently anti-cycle lane around me, which is astonishing if you think about it. Probably the most Lib Demmy policy you could imagine; Davey actually cycled into his manifesto launch.

They are mopping up what remains of the Conservatives after Farage has finished with his share.

LostPassword said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I asked earlier but didn't get a reply.. I'll try again

Does anyone know if the stated (£700m?) cost of the Rwanda scheme was money paid to Rwanda, or did it include the cost of fighting the legal challenges against the scheme?

I think that this is an important distinction in assessing the cost of the scheme

The government give a breakdown here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/medp-with-rwanda-and-the-illegal-migration-act-associated-costs/breakdown-of-home-office-costs-associated-with-the-medp-with-rwanda-and-the-illegal-migration-act-2023

To Rwanda is a total of £290m.

There is £280m of "other fixed costs" which is defined as (with my bold):

These include:

* the costs incurred to design and develop the digital, IT and data systems required to operationalise the MEDP and IMA
* legal costs and the cost of staff working directly on both of these policies

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

Dopermean said:

RobD said:

.

Dopermean said:

Dopermean said:

BlancheLivermore said:

So Starmer's deportations aren't what any traditional use of the English language would describe as deportations?

We're paying a tiny, tiny percentage of illegal immigrants to go home to safe countries

And Starmer claims that he's deported loads of illegals

This isn't difficult,
If you apply for asylum and your country is deemed safe then your asylum application fails and you are returned to your safe country.
If you apply for asylum and you are deemed to be at risk in your home country then your asylum application is successful.
It would be illegal to return an asylum applicant to an unsafe country

That Labour is now processing asylum applicants and returning people just shows how simple it could have been for the Conservatives if they hadn't chosen not to process asylum applicants and instead wasted money on housing them in socially deprived areas where the EDL etc could wind up the locals.

In this case they weren’t asylum seekers, rather those that have overstayed their visa.

Even easier to deport then.
At £3k to avoid the cost of the legal process, the £700m for Rwanda policy could have been spent on returning 200,000 overstayers.

That sums up the problem entirely. You shouldn’t have to pay to deport people who are in the country illegally. If someone has overstayed their visa, they shouldn’t be allowed to stay.

If they don't have any assets, how are you going to get them back to their country of origin without taking a loss?

(I do realize that Norway - with its approximately 300 undocumented migrants - doesn't bother because people self-deport. But that's easier when you are inside Schengen.)

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

MattW said:

Ratters said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Wow.

Blistering paper by Dieter Helm on the current situation with renewables and UK (and world) move towards net zero etc etc.

Ed Miliband will most certainly not enjoy reading this one.

https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/climate-realism-time-for-a-re-set/

This bit is both true, and wildly misleading:



Specifically, solar is now so spectacularly cheap, that it is simply going to supplant the vast majority of fossil fuels, almost irrespective of government diktat.

The problem is that energy use is so elastic. As soon as energy becomes cheaper, we come up with new ways of using the stuff. So it never gets very cheap and fossil fuels remain economical.

Well, I agree that - in the medium term - energy use is pretty elastic. But it's not *that* elastic. Per capita energy consumption in the developed world peaked in the early 1970s.

And I think it's easy to miss just how cheap solar is becoming. If it's a tenth of the price per KwH of energy of gas or oil, then really, how can fossil fuels compete?

They can compete by being more controllable. Solar can't be switched on at will.

Yep, and they'll have a role - particularly gas.

But gas will only be used at night and when the wind isn't blowing.

If solar is so cheap that everything else becomes uneconomic, how will all of that infrastructure be funded?

All of what infrastructure?

The UK has gas peaking plants - OCGTs - that work perhaps 20 hours a year, when the electricity price is at its very highest level.

Modern gas plants are incredibly inexpensive to run. Unlike coal, they are low people, low maintenance, and highly automated.

You said "when the wind isn't blowing". Building and maintaining wind turbines isn't cheap.

Ummm: I thought you were talking about natural gas?

Irrespective, what does the cost of building have to do with anything? If the guy who built the wind turbines doesn't make his cost of capital or goes bust, then the wind turbines still exist, and still generate power.

There are many power plants in the UK that went bust at one point or another, usually due to over-leverage, and then got picked up for pennies on the dollar.

I was talking about everything else in the context of your panglossian view of solar.

The lifespan of a turbine is only about 20-25 years. If they're an essential part of the mix despite solar, then how will the economics stack up if the price of electricity becomes "spectacularly cheap"?

Oh, in the long run, wind doesn't make sense either. I wouldn't be queuing up to invest in wind turbines today.

But here's the chart:



That's solar price per watt over time. Basically, it's dropped by 20% every year. (Wind by contrast has improved by maybe 2%.)

A bet against solar is a bet that that 20% stops. And it might. But you'd be a brave man betting against it.

Should the likes of Spain, Portugal not be building huge wind farms with interconnectors to the rest of Europe?

Build 500%+ of their own electricity needs and become huge energy exporters.

Export to whom?

I can see bits at the margins - 10, 15% of consumption.

I can't see 1200-1300 GWh being in demand per annum.

I hope there is.
One of the points of zero marginal cost electricity is the potential for huge economic growth. There's the possibility of completely new industries.

The author of the article that sparked this discussion seems to fundementally disagree with you on that.

That's fine.
But FWIW I think it's wrong.

There may be big prizes for those who show I'm right.

noneoftheabove said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Mexicanpete said:

BlancheLivermore said:

So Starmer's deportations aren't what any traditional use of the English language would describe as deportations?

We're paying a tiny, tiny percentage of illegal immigrants to go home to safe countries

And Starmer claims that he's deported loads of illegals

He sent a plane loads of Vietnamese back to Saigon over the summer. One moment you're moaning that the current government has failed in its immigration policy the next you are changing the terms of reference to suit your agenda.

You have plenty of genuine targets to aim at over Starmer's 5 months of disappointment but immigration after years of your team's subject failure is a bit rich.

Where are the human rights lawyers challenging every deportation that happened under the previous government?

Why didn't the last government go after these apparently easy targets that have been found so quickly for human rights lawyer Sir Keir?

Is Sir Keir such a fucking amazing human rights lawyer that he just knows, and wins?

It is not that SKS is amazing. It is that the Conservatives were a mix of incompetents and two faced liars quite happy to fail in tackling asylum in order to generate favourable Daily Mail headlines. It really is beyond time to start asking why voters concerned about immigration don't understand this. Some have and have switched to Reform. More will as time goes by.

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

Dopermean said:

RobD said:

.

Dopermean said:

Dopermean said:

BlancheLivermore said:

So Starmer's deportations aren't what any traditional use of the English language would describe as deportations?

We're paying a tiny, tiny percentage of illegal immigrants to go home to safe countries

And Starmer claims that he's deported loads of illegals

This isn't difficult,
If you apply for asylum and your country is deemed safe then your asylum application fails and you are returned to your safe country.
If you apply for asylum and you are deemed to be at risk in your home country then your asylum application is successful.
It would be illegal to return an asylum applicant to an unsafe country

That Labour is now processing asylum applicants and returning people just shows how simple it could have been for the Conservatives if they hadn't chosen not to process asylum applicants and instead wasted money on housing them in socially deprived areas where the EDL etc could wind up the locals.

In this case they weren’t asylum seekers, rather those that have overstayed their visa.

Even easier to deport then.
At £3k to avoid the cost of the legal process, the £700m for Rwanda policy could have been spent on returning 200,000 overstayers.

That sums up the problem entirely. You shouldn’t have to pay to deport people who are in the country illegally. If someone has overstayed their visa, they shouldn’t be allowed to stay.

If they don't have any assets, how are you going to get them back to their country of origin without taking a loss?

(I do realize that Norway - with its approximately 300 undocumented migrants - doesn't bother because people self-deport. But that's easier when you are inside Schengen.)

Of course there would be a cost to the process. I was referring to the £3k each of them were bunged.

HYUFD said:

State Banquet surprise guests ⬇️
David and
@victoriabeckham
arrive at tonight’s State Banquet at Buckingham Palace for the visit of the Emir of Qatar.
https://x.com/chrisshipitv/status/1864056527365001490

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

Dopermean said:

RobD said:

.

Dopermean said:

Dopermean said:

BlancheLivermore said:

So Starmer's deportations aren't what any traditional use of the English language would describe as deportations?

We're paying a tiny, tiny percentage of illegal immigrants to go home to safe countries

And Starmer claims that he's deported loads of illegals

This isn't difficult,
If you apply for asylum and your country is deemed safe then your asylum application fails and you are returned to your safe country.
If you apply for asylum and you are deemed to be at risk in your home country then your asylum application is successful.
It would be illegal to return an asylum applicant to an unsafe country

That Labour is now processing asylum applicants and returning people just shows how simple it could have been for the Conservatives if they hadn't chosen not to process asylum applicants and instead wasted money on housing them in socially deprived areas where the EDL etc could wind up the locals.

In this case they weren’t asylum seekers, rather those that have overstayed their visa.

Even easier to deport then.
At £3k to avoid the cost of the legal process, the £700m for Rwanda policy could have been spent on returning 200,000 overstayers.

That sums up the problem entirely. You shouldn’t have to pay to deport people who are in the country illegally. If someone has overstayed their visa, they shouldn’t be allowed to stay.

If they don't have any assets, how are you going to get them back to their country of origin without taking a loss?

(I do realize that Norway - with its approximately 300 undocumented migrants - doesn't bother because people self-deport. But that's easier when you are inside Schengen.)

Of course there would be a cost to the process. I was referring to the £3k each of them were bunged.

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

Dopermean said:

RobD said:

.

Dopermean said:

Dopermean said:

BlancheLivermore said:

So Starmer's deportations aren't what any traditional use of the English language would describe as deportations?

We're paying a tiny, tiny percentage of illegal immigrants to go home to safe countries

And Starmer claims that he's deported loads of illegals

This isn't difficult,
If you apply for asylum and your country is deemed safe then your asylum application fails and you are returned to your safe country.
If you apply for asylum and you are deemed to be at risk in your home country then your asylum application is successful.
It would be illegal to return an asylum applicant to an unsafe country

That Labour is now processing asylum applicants and returning people just shows how simple it could have been for the Conservatives if they hadn't chosen not to process asylum applicants and instead wasted money on housing them in socially deprived areas where the EDL etc could wind up the locals.

In this case they weren’t asylum seekers, rather those that have overstayed their visa.

Even easier to deport then.
At £3k to avoid the cost of the legal process, the £700m for Rwanda policy could have been spent on returning 200,000 overstayers.

That sums up the problem entirely. You shouldn’t have to pay to deport people who are in the country illegally. If someone has overstayed their visa, they shouldn’t be allowed to stay.

If they don't have any assets, how are you going to get them back to their country of origin without taking a loss?

(I do realize that Norway - with its approximately 300 undocumented migrants - doesn't bother because people self-deport. But that's easier when you are inside Schengen.)

Of course there would be a cost to the process. I was referring to the £3k each of them were bunged.

And is one of the conditions that they're not ever allowed back, or can they do the same thing next year and get a free flight back home again?

If you have ever been deported from a country, it is usually exceptionally hard to reenter.

(I just looked it up, and bizarrely it appears you only get a 5 to 10 year ban for overstaying your visa by six months or more and getting deported at HMG's expense.)

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

Tim Montgomerie joins Reform

https://x.com/reformparty_uk/status/1863991600382153203

The founder of Ukip Home has joined Reform?

Only shocking thing is that he didn't make the jump a decade ago.

He used to have an office at CCHQ when he ran the Conservative Christian Fellowship, he will certainly try and shift Reform in a more socially conservative direction. He joins Ann Widdecombe as the main representative of the Christian right in Reform

Proving the old adage.

Tim Montgomerie has abandoned the Tories for Reform and as a result the quality of both parties has gone up.

That's rather clever Bart. Although one's head hurts after thinking about it.

HYUFD said:

Ratters said:

HYUFD said:

Even if Labour does remain in office it will be scraping home in a hung parliament propped up by the LDs most likely, the price of which will be an end to the tractor tax and restored WFPs. The cost of living crisis is hitting Labour as much as other incumbent governments across the world but Starmer and Reeves have only exacerbated the impact by their decision making

The Lib Dems would be mad to focus on those policies being the price of support. They would focus elsewhere.

The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.

They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again

Ken Clark on LBC suggested that the IHT on farms is fine. He criticised the Thatcher Tories for implementing it. He also said he would remove WFP which he claimed was a last ditch Gordon throw of the dice. Both taxes he explains have been poorly sold by Reeves. He disagrees with the employers NI policy. He said her error was promising not to increase income tax and VAT. He says he would have jacked up VAT and to Hell with the popularity consequences.

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

Tim Montgomerie joins Reform

https://x.com/reformparty_uk/status/1863991600382153203

The founder of Ukip Home has joined Reform?

Only shocking thing is that he didn't make the jump a decade ago.

He used to have an office at CCHQ when he ran the Conservative Christian Fellowship, he will certainly try and shift Reform in a more socially conservative direction. He joins Ann Widdecombe as the main representative of the Christian right in Reform

Proving the old adage.

Tim Montgomerie has abandoned the Tories for Reform and as a result the quality of both parties has gone up.

That's rather clever Bart. Although one's head hurts after thinking about it.

HYUFD said:

Ratters said:

HYUFD said:

Even if Labour does remain in office it will be scraping home in a hung parliament propped up by the LDs most likely, the price of which will be an end to the tractor tax and restored WFPs. The cost of living crisis is hitting Labour as much as other incumbent governments across the world but Starmer and Reeves have only exacerbated the impact by their decision making

The Lib Dems would be mad to focus on those policies being the price of support. They would focus elsewhere.

The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.

They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again

Ken Clark on LBC suggested that the IHT on farms is fine. He criticised the Thatcher Tories for implementing it. He also said he would remove WFP which he claimed was a last ditch Gordon throw of the dice. Both taxes he explains have been poorly sold by Reeves. He disagrees with the employers NI policy. He said her error was promising not to increase income tax and VAT. He says he would have jacked up VAT and to Hell with the popularity consequences.

Ken Clarke is too leftwing even for the LDs these days, he belongs in Starmer Labour

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Even if Labour does remain in office it will be scraping home in a hung parliament propped up by the LDs most likely, the price of which will be an end to the tractor tax and restored WFPs. The cost of living crisis is hitting Labour as much as other incumbent governments across the world but Starmer and Reeves have only exacerbated the impact by their decision making

I think both those issues will be forgotten about in 4 years. There will be new stuff by then.

They certainly won't be forgotten by farmers or pensioners if those round here are anything to go by, they absolutely despise Starmer and Reeves and will vote for whoever is best placed to beat Labour next time.

Same goes for small business owners spltting blood over the NI rise for employers

A week is a long time in politics. 4 years is an eon.

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

Tim Montgomerie joins Reform

https://x.com/reformparty_uk/status/1863991600382153203

The founder of Ukip Home has joined Reform?

Only shocking thing is that he didn't make the jump a decade ago.

He used to have an office at CCHQ when he ran the Conservative Christian Fellowship, he will certainly try and shift Reform in a more socially conservative direction. He joins Ann Widdecombe as the main representative of the Christian right in Reform

Proving the old adage.

Tim Montgomerie has abandoned the Tories for Reform and as a result the quality of both parties has gone up.

That's rather clever Bart. Although one's head hurts after thinking about it.

HYUFD said:

Ratters said:

HYUFD said:

Even if Labour does remain in office it will be scraping home in a hung parliament propped up by the LDs most likely, the price of which will be an end to the tractor tax and restored WFPs. The cost of living crisis is hitting Labour as much as other incumbent governments across the world but Starmer and Reeves have only exacerbated the impact by their decision making

The Lib Dems would be mad to focus on those policies being the price of support. They would focus elsewhere.

The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.

They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again

Ken Clark on LBC suggested that the IHT on farms is fine. He criticised the Thatcher Tories for implementing it. He also said he would remove WFP which he claimed was a last ditch Gordon throw of the dice. Both taxes he explains have been poorly sold by Reeves. He disagrees with the employers NI policy. He said her error was promising not to increase income tax and VAT. He says he would have jacked up VAT and to Hell with the popularity consequences.

Ken Clarke is too leftwing even for the LDs these days, he belongs in Starmer Labour

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Ratters said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Well martial law didn't last long in South Korea.....

Given it was declared around 11.30pm and rescinded by 5am, most South Koreans probably slept through the whole thing!

Seems like a right bonkers decision, given the reaction. It makes one suspect some grand strategy around it as can he really have thought it would work?

You usually get only one go at a coup (OK, possible Trump exception).

If he'd sorted the army to be more ruthless - mass arrests of assembly members, or shot a couple of the protesters - it might have worked.

And that danger was always there, which makes they guys that stopped it pretty damn brave.

I get the impression the army is going to be pretty pissed it was dragged into this. They were quick enough to withdraw once it became clear that Parliament were not going to back down. That struck me as being more a case of being ill informed and used rather than being part of any great coup plot. Did the President simply think he could bluff his way through it?

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

Tim Montgomerie joins Reform

https://x.com/reformparty_uk/status/1863991600382153203

The founder of Ukip Home has joined Reform?

Only shocking thing is that he didn't make the jump a decade ago.

He used to have an office at CCHQ when he ran the Conservative Christian Fellowship, he will certainly try and shift Reform in a more socially conservative direction. He joins Ann Widdecombe as the main representative of the Christian right in Reform

Proving the old adage.

Tim Montgomerie has abandoned the Tories for Reform and as a result the quality of both parties has gone up.

That's rather clever Bart. Although one's head hurts after thinking about it.

HYUFD said:

Ratters said:

HYUFD said:

Even if Labour does remain in office it will be scraping home in a hung parliament propped up by the LDs most likely, the price of which will be an end to the tractor tax and restored WFPs. The cost of living crisis is hitting Labour as much as other incumbent governments across the world but Starmer and Reeves have only exacerbated the impact by their decision making

The Lib Dems would be mad to focus on those policies being the price of support. They would focus elsewhere.

The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.

They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again

Ken Clark on LBC suggested that the IHT on farms is fine. He criticised the Thatcher Tories for implementing it. He also said he would remove WFP which he claimed was a last ditch Gordon throw of the dice. Both taxes he explains have been poorly sold by Reeves. He disagrees with the employers NI policy. He said her error was promising not to increase income tax and VAT. He says he would have jacked up VAT and to Hell with the popularity consequences.

Ken Clarke is too leftwing even for the LDs these days, he belongs in Starmer Labour

Labour embracing the scourge of public sector workers in his day would be like the Democrats embracing Bush and Cheney.

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

Tim Montgomerie joins Reform

https://x.com/reformparty_uk/status/1863991600382153203

The founder of Ukip Home has joined Reform?

Only shocking thing is that he didn't make the jump a decade ago.

He used to have an office at CCHQ when he ran the Conservative Christian Fellowship, he will certainly try and shift Reform in a more socially conservative direction. He joins Ann Widdecombe as the main representative of the Christian right in Reform

Proving the old adage.

Tim Montgomerie has abandoned the Tories for Reform and as a result the quality of both parties has gone up.

That's rather clever Bart. Although one's head hurts after thinking about it.

HYUFD said:

Ratters said:

HYUFD said:

Even if Labour does remain in office it will be scraping home in a hung parliament propped up by the LDs most likely, the price of which will be an end to the tractor tax and restored WFPs. The cost of living crisis is hitting Labour as much as other incumbent governments across the world but Starmer and Reeves have only exacerbated the impact by their decision making

The Lib Dems would be mad to focus on those policies being the price of support. They would focus elsewhere.

The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.

They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again

Ken Clark on LBC suggested that the IHT on farms is fine. He criticised the Thatcher Tories for implementing it. He also said he would remove WFP which he claimed was a last ditch Gordon throw of the dice. Both taxes he explains have been poorly sold by Reeves. He disagrees with the employers NI policy. He said her error was promising not to increase income tax and VAT. He says he would have jacked up VAT and to Hell with the popularity consequences.

Ken Clarke is too leftwing even for the LDs these days, he belongs in Starmer Labour

rottenborough said:

Garry Kasparov
@Kasparov63
Biden should have stepped down and let Harris pardon Hunter. This would also 1) deliver the first black woman president and 2) ruin all of Trump's made-in-China "45th-47th President" merchandise!

https://x.com/Kasparov63/status/1864047573280919593

FrankBooth said:

rottenborough said:

Garry Kasparov
@Kasparov63
Biden should have stepped down and let Harris pardon Hunter. This would also 1) deliver the first black woman president and 2) ruin all of Trump's made-in-China "45th-47th President" merchandise!

https://x.com/Kasparov63/status/1864047573280919593

Great man.

Shecorns88 said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Even if Labour does remain in office it will be scraping home in a hung parliament propped up by the LDs most likely, the price of which will be an end to the tractor tax and restored WFPs. The cost of living crisis is hitting Labour as much as other incumbent governments across the world but Starmer and Reeves have only exacerbated the impact by their decision making

I think both those issues will be forgotten about in 4 years. There will be new stuff by then.

They certainly won't be forgotten by farmers or pensioners if those round here are anything to go by, they absolutely despise Starmer and Reeves and will vote for whoever is best placed to beat Labour next time.

Same goes for small business owners spltting blood over the NI rise for employers

A week is a long time in politics. 4 years is an eon.

That would be the small businesses many if whom are exempt. Plus the majority of farmers who are exempt.

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

Ratters said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Wow.

Blistering paper by Dieter Helm on the current situation with renewables and UK (and world) move towards net zero etc etc.

Ed Miliband will most certainly not enjoy reading this one.

https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/climate-realism-time-for-a-re-set/

This bit is both true, and wildly misleading:



Specifically, solar is now so spectacularly cheap, that it is simply going to supplant the vast majority of fossil fuels, almost irrespective of government diktat.

The problem is that energy use is so elastic. As soon as energy becomes cheaper, we come up with new ways of using the stuff. So it never gets very cheap and fossil fuels remain economical.

Well, I agree that - in the medium term - energy use is pretty elastic. But it's not *that* elastic. Per capita energy consumption in the developed world peaked in the early 1970s.

And I think it's easy to miss just how cheap solar is becoming. If it's a tenth of the price per KwH of energy of gas or oil, then really, how can fossil fuels compete?

They can compete by being more controllable. Solar can't be switched on at will.

Yep, and they'll have a role - particularly gas.

But gas will only be used at night and when the wind isn't blowing.

If solar is so cheap that everything else becomes uneconomic, how will all of that infrastructure be funded?

All of what infrastructure?

The UK has gas peaking plants - OCGTs - that work perhaps 20 hours a year, when the electricity price is at its very highest level.

Modern gas plants are incredibly inexpensive to run. Unlike coal, they are low people, low maintenance, and highly automated.

You said "when the wind isn't blowing". Building and maintaining wind turbines isn't cheap.

Ummm: I thought you were talking about natural gas?

Irrespective, what does the cost of building have to do with anything? If the guy who built the wind turbines doesn't make his cost of capital or goes bust, then the wind turbines still exist, and still generate power.

There are many power plants in the UK that went bust at one point or another, usually due to over-leverage, and then got picked up for pennies on the dollar.

I was talking about everything else in the context of your panglossian view of solar.

The lifespan of a turbine is only about 20-25 years. If they're an essential part of the mix despite solar, then how will the economics stack up if the price of electricity becomes "spectacularly cheap"?

Oh, in the long run, wind doesn't make sense either. I wouldn't be queuing up to invest in wind turbines today.

But here's the chart:



That's solar price per watt over time. Basically, it's dropped by 20% every year. (Wind by contrast has improved by maybe 2%.)

A bet against solar is a bet that that 20% stops. And it might. But you'd be a brave man betting against it.

Should the likes of Spain, Portugal not be building huge wind farms with interconnectors to the rest of Europe?

Build 500%+ of their own electricity needs and become huge energy exporters.

You mean solar?

And yes, they should.

Which implies you don't think domestic solar can be sufficient, otherwise the transport costs wouldn't be worth it.

Not necessarily.

In the long term, solar panels will be so cheap that we'll cover the UK in them.

But in the medium term, panels in North Africa and the Iberian peninsular make perfect sense. And they'll keep being useful even after the UK is covered in panels, because daylight hours are so much longer in winter there.

The issue with solar is that while California's electricity demand spikes in the summer when the sun is shining and the air con is going on, the UK's demands spike in winter when it is dark 16 hours of a day and the heating is on.

Solar absolutely is great at marginal costs when it works, but I don't see it as being as reliable as eg wind etc personally.

MoonRabbit said:

Shecorns88 said:

Dopermean said:

noneoftheabove said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Mexicanpete said:

BlancheLivermore said:

So Starmer's deportations aren't what any traditional use of the English language would describe as deportations?

We're paying a tiny, tiny percentage of illegal immigrants to go home to safe countries

And Starmer claims that he's deported loads of illegals

He sent a plane loads of Vietnamese back to Saigon over the summer. One moment you're moaning that the current government has failed in its immigration policy the next you are changing the terms of reference to suit your agenda.

You have plenty of genuine targets to aim at over Starmer's 5 months of disappointment but immigration after years of your team's subject failure is a bit rich.

Where are the human rights lawyers challenging every deportation that happened under the previous government?

Why didn't the last government go after these apparently easy targets that have been found so quickly for human rights lawyer Sir Keir?

Is Sir Keir such a fucking amazing human rights lawyer that he just knows, and wins?

It is not that SKS is amazing. It is that the Conservatives were a mix of incompetents and two faced liars quite happy to fail in tackling asylum in order to generate favourable Daily Mail headlines. It really is beyond time to start asking why voters concerned about immigration don't understand this. Some have and have switched to Reform. More will as time goes by.

If you don't warehouse thousands of asylum seekers in socially deprived areas then there are no asylum seekers to get angry about.... Reform need an immigration problem to be electorally successful, so they aren't going to solve it, and since the Conservatives let Crosby take charge of their electoral strategy that's been their tactic as well.

The Managerial skills of SKS. Getting flights off the ground at 3k per head to remove almost 10000 people in 4 months.

Contrast and compare to 700m for 4 volunteers to Rwanda at 175million a head

Who'd have thought it was so simple.

If he can upscale that 3 fold per annum just imagine the last breath seeping out of the Reform bubble in 4 years time.

It's not rocket science it's method and process driven commonsense.

The morality of SKS.

Straight for the low hanging fruit - women and young children shipped to Brazil on Secret Flights, back to where the street gangs said they would murder them if they ever saw them again.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2024/dec/01/ella-baron-600-brazilians-deported-uk-secret-flights-cartoon

Have you any idea what happens the other end, She Corn? Frightened Women and children dumped on a tarmac whilst SKS secret extradition flights roar off into distance for the next pay load.

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

There’s a fascinating article in - IIRC (sorry, jet lag) - the FT about Musk and the UK

Apparently his deep interest in British politics is not just coz he likes arguing on TwiX about Woke. It is because he is of part British descent, and he believes the UK plays a crucial role as the mothership of the English speaking nations, inc the USA. So what happens in Britain “really matters” around the world - his words

I hope he gives Reform a billion quid and they win in 2028

I reckon he just really doesn't like Starmer and is fucking with Labour as much as he can for the lols.

Far closer to the truth than Leon's starry eyed take.

oh

“Musk had explained his interest in the UK by saying: “You are the mother country of the entirety of the English speaking world, it really matters.””

https://www.ft.com/content/987f70fd-c718-4998-a097-f4a8f4a462b7

Musk lies.

You need to distinguish between a lie and an opinion.

"My firstborn child died in my arms. I felt his last heartbeat," is not an 'opinion'. And it is denied (angrily) by his ex-wife.

If he lies about his child dying in his arms, what else would he lie about.

"Ah", I hear you say. "She is obviously lying."

Well, if you want another example, his lies about his father owning, or not owning an emerald mine.

There are many, many others.

There are many examples of Starmer lying too, but that's not the point.

If he says he thinks that Britain, as the mother country, matters to the fate of global Anglosphere politics, that's an opinion, not something that can be a lie, unless you suspect that he doesn't really think this, but what is the evidence for that?

You can't just handwave that away. This is a man who lies about his first child dying in his arms. That's the state of the guy you're supporting.

(Worse: as I recall he said it when he was stating why he would not let Alex Jones back on Twix. Guess what? Ales Jones is back on Twix...)

And Joe Biden said he would never pardon his son...

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/hunter-biden-pardon-joe-biden-conviction-rcna156597

Biden’s decision is the correct one. By ruling out a pardon, he is demonstrating respect for the rule of law. He might also be taking pains not to serve as an enabler for a child who has struggled with drug addiction. Whether he’s motivated by his respect for the law, his desire to see his son take accountability for his actions or a combination of the two, he’s making the right call.

Biden has fucked the Democrats as a “bastion of morality” for years. The Hunter Pardon will be thrown at them every time they attempt to take the high ground on anything, and it will work

Jon Stewart did a brutal and amusing riff on it - you can catch it on YouTube here

https://youtu.be/V5BcIHPMAHw?si=F81v4mbA0LUGcPU9

No he hasn't.
They've already repudiated Biden for the pardon.

But I can see it got you excited.

williamglenn said:

Shecorns88 said:

Andy_JS said:

For some reason I'm quite surprised that Tim Montgomerie has joined Reform UK.

He tried to speak to Kemi but she only answers her phone on Wednesday and Thursday.

Too busy spending time with the family and practicing the origami to fold the A4 in to 6 perfect folds for her Pmq questions to be written on tomorrow.

Western politics is bifurcating into two sides: for and against Musk. Kemi risks getting caught in the middle, unlike Giorgia Meloni.

Eabhal said:

noneoftheabove said:

Shecorns88 said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Even if Labour does remain in office it will be scraping home in a hung parliament propped up by the LDs most likely, the price of which will be an end to the tractor tax and restored WFPs. The cost of living crisis is hitting Labour as much as other incumbent governments across the world but Starmer and Reeves have only exacerbated the impact by their decision making

I think both those issues will be forgotten about in 4 years. There will be new stuff by then.

They certainly won't be forgotten by farmers or pensioners if those round here are anything to go by, they absolutely despise Starmer and Reeves and will vote for whoever is best placed to beat Labour next time.

Same goes for small business owners spltting blood over the NI rise for employers

A week is a long time in politics. 4 years is an eon.

That would be the small businesses many if whom are exempt. Plus the majority of farmers who are exempt.

1m small businesses will pay less or no more NI next year. The government have failed dismally on the PR front as very few people understand that.

Yes, I think the doubling of the employment allowance should get more focus. It's effectively a £5,000 bung for the equivalent of any business with four or more employees on NMW. That's a tiny amount of cash for someone like Tesco, but not too bad for outfits employing 5 - 10 people.

williamglenn said:

FrankBooth said:

rottenborough said:

Garry Kasparov
@Kasparov63
Biden should have stepped down and let Harris pardon Hunter. This would also 1) deliver the first black woman president and 2) ruin all of Trump's made-in-China "45th-47th President" merchandise!

https://x.com/Kasparov63/status/1864047573280919593

Great man.

He's also a nutter who peddled conspiracy theories about much of western history being faked.

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:

Shecorns88 said:

Andy_JS said:

For some reason I'm quite surprised that Tim Montgomerie has joined Reform UK.

He tried to speak to Kemi but she only answers her phone on Wednesday and Thursday.

Too busy spending time with the family and practicing the origami to fold the A4 in to 6 perfect folds for her Pmq questions to be written on tomorrow.

Western politics is bifurcating into two sides: for and against Musk. Kemi risks getting caught in the middle, unlike Giorgia Meloni.

There is a serious issue around how much power we allow to the richest billionaires.

Are they above the law?
Do they get to choose who our governments are going to be ?
Etc.

Nigelb said:

FrankBooth said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

There’s a fascinating article in - IIRC (sorry, jet lag) - the FT about Musk and the UK

Apparently his deep interest in British politics is not just coz he likes arguing on TwiX about Woke. It is because he is of part British descent, and he believes the UK plays a crucial role as the mothership of the English speaking nations, inc the USA. So what happens in Britain “really matters” around the world - his words

I hope he gives Reform a billion quid and they win in 2028

I reckon he just really doesn't like Starmer and is fucking with Labour as much as he can for the lols.

Far closer to the truth than Leon's starry eyed take.

oh

“Musk had explained his interest in the UK by saying: “You are the mother country of the entirety of the English speaking world, it really matters.””

https://www.ft.com/content/987f70fd-c718-4998-a097-f4a8f4a462b7

Musk lies.

You need to distinguish between a lie and an opinion.

"My firstborn child died in my arms. I felt his last heartbeat," is not an 'opinion'. And it is denied (angrily) by his ex-wife.

If he lies about his child dying in his arms, what else would he lie about.

"Ah", I hear you say. "She is obviously lying."

Well, if you want another example, his lies about his father owning, or not owning an emerald mine.

There are many, many others.

There are many examples of Starmer lying too, but that's not the point.

If he says he thinks that Britain, as the mother country, matters to the fate of global Anglosphere politics, that's an opinion, not something that can be a lie, unless you suspect that he doesn't really think this, but what is the evidence for that?

You can't just handwave that away. This is a man who lies about his first child dying in his arms. That's the state of the guy you're supporting.

(Worse: as I recall he said it when he was stating why he would not let Alex Jones back on Twix. Guess what? Ales Jones is back on Twix...)

And Joe Biden said he would never pardon his son...

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/hunter-biden-pardon-joe-biden-conviction-rcna156597

Biden’s decision is the correct one. By ruling out a pardon, he is demonstrating respect for the rule of law. He might also be taking pains not to serve as an enabler for a child who has struggled with drug addiction. Whether he’s motivated by his respect for the law, his desire to see his son take accountability for his actions or a combination of the two, he’s making the right call.

Biden has fucked the Democrats as a “bastion of morality” for years. The Hunter Pardon will be thrown at them every time they attempt to take the high ground on anything, and it will work

Jon Stewart did a brutal and amusing riff on it - you can catch it on YouTube here

https://youtu.be/V5BcIHPMAHw?si=F81v4mbA0LUGcPU9

No he hasn't.
They've already repudiated Biden for the pardon.

But I can see it got you excited.

'They' can repudiate him all they want. It's still going to stick to them.

I wonder if his economic policies will now bear fruit. With a different foreign policy he might have been a great President.

Unless they actually back the pardon, I don't think it will.
Even political journalists already seem to have forgotten the grubbier details of Trump's pardons, for example.

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

Eabhal said:

noneoftheabove said:

Shecorns88 said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Even if Labour does remain in office it will be scraping home in a hung parliament propped up by the LDs most likely, the price of which will be an end to the tractor tax and restored WFPs. The cost of living crisis is hitting Labour as much as other incumbent governments across the world but Starmer and Reeves have only exacerbated the impact by their decision making

I think both those issues will be forgotten about in 4 years. There will be new stuff by then.

They certainly won't be forgotten by farmers or pensioners if those round here are anything to go by, they absolutely despise Starmer and Reeves and will vote for whoever is best placed to beat Labour next time.

Same goes for small business owners spltting blood over the NI rise for employers

A week is a long time in politics. 4 years is an eon.

That would be the small businesses many if whom are exempt. Plus the majority of farmers who are exempt.

1m small businesses will pay less or no more NI next year. The government have failed dismally on the PR front as very few people understand that.

Yes, I think the doubling of the employment allowance should get more focus. It's effectively a £5,000 bung for the equivalent of any business with four or more employees on NMW. That's a tiny amount of cash for someone like Tesco, but not too bad for outfits employing 5 - 10 people.

Tesco dont get any employment allowance - if your total NI bill >£100k you arent eligible.

But a million other businesses will benefit from it..

FrankBooth said:

williamglenn said:

FrankBooth said:

rottenborough said:

Garry Kasparov
@Kasparov63
Biden should have stepped down and let Harris pardon Hunter. This would also 1) deliver the first black woman president and 2) ruin all of Trump's made-in-China "45th-47th President" merchandise!

https://x.com/Kasparov63/status/1864047573280919593

Great man.

He's also a nutter who peddled conspiracy theories about much of western history being faked.

Kasparov?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I drove my first ev today

My car was in for service and Mercedes courtesy car was an ECQ 250+ at a retail price of £56750

A lovely car and of course high tec, but only max of about 200 miles range which would mean our trip to Lossiemouth would require 3 stops, whereas my previous BMW took me there and back to Perth on one tank of diesel

The other thing I had not experienced was the immediate drop in speed when lifting the foot off the pedal. Mercedes told me this can be adjusted but they have it on maximum to save the battery and the range

Anyway good for fleet drivers and the wealthy but I will stick to my petrol car

Stuartinromford said:

SteveS said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

Ratters said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Wow.

Blistering paper by Dieter Helm on the current situation with renewables and UK (and world) move towards net zero etc etc.

Ed Miliband will most certainly not enjoy reading this one.

https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/climate-realism-time-for-a-re-set/

This bit is both true, and wildly misleading:



Specifically, solar is now so spectacularly cheap, that it is simply going to supplant the vast majority of fossil fuels, almost irrespective of government diktat.

The problem is that energy use is so elastic. As soon as energy becomes cheaper, we come up with new ways of using the stuff. So it never gets very cheap and fossil fuels remain economical.

Well, I agree that - in the medium term - energy use is pretty elastic. But it's not *that* elastic. Per capita energy consumption in the developed world peaked in the early 1970s.

And I think it's easy to miss just how cheap solar is becoming. If it's a tenth of the price per KwH of energy of gas or oil, then really, how can fossil fuels compete?

They can compete by being more controllable. Solar can't be switched on at will.

Yep, and they'll have a role - particularly gas.

But gas will only be used at night and when the wind isn't blowing.

If solar is so cheap that everything else becomes uneconomic, how will all of that infrastructure be funded?

All of what infrastructure?

The UK has gas peaking plants - OCGTs - that work perhaps 20 hours a year, when the electricity price is at its very highest level.

Modern gas plants are incredibly inexpensive to run. Unlike coal, they are low people, low maintenance, and highly automated.

You said "when the wind isn't blowing". Building and maintaining wind turbines isn't cheap.

Ummm: I thought you were talking about natural gas?

Irrespective, what does the cost of building have to do with anything? If the guy who built the wind turbines doesn't make his cost of capital or goes bust, then the wind turbines still exist, and still generate power.

There are many power plants in the UK that went bust at one point or another, usually due to over-leverage, and then got picked up for pennies on the dollar.

I was talking about everything else in the context of your panglossian view of solar.

The lifespan of a turbine is only about 20-25 years. If they're an essential part of the mix despite solar, then how will the economics stack up if the price of electricity becomes "spectacularly cheap"?

Oh, in the long run, wind doesn't make sense either. I wouldn't be queuing up to invest in wind turbines today.

But here's the chart:



That's solar price per watt over time. Basically, it's dropped by 20% every year. (Wind by contrast has improved by maybe 2%.)

A bet against solar is a bet that that 20% stops. And it might. But you'd be a brave man betting against it.

Should the likes of Spain, Portugal not be building huge wind farms with interconnectors to the rest of Europe?

Build 500%+ of their own electricity needs and become huge energy exporters.

You mean solar?

And yes, they should.

Which implies you don't think domestic solar can be sufficient, otherwise the transport costs wouldn't be worth it.

Not necessarily.

In the long term, solar panels will be so cheap that we'll cover the UK in them.

But in the medium term, panels in North Africa and the Iberian peninsular make perfect sense. And they'll keep being useful even after the UK is covered in panels, because daylight hours are so much longer in winter there.

The issue with solar is that while California's electricity demand spikes in the summer when the sun is shining and the air con is going on, the UK's demands spike in winter when it is dark 16 hours of a day and the heating is on.

Solar absolutely is great at marginal costs when it works, but I don't see it as being as reliable as eg wind etc personally.

Three or four years I would have agreed with you. However now the cost of batteries (sometimes living inside an EV) is plummeting.

We’ve not yet got a battery, but I know plenty of smug MC families bragging about their low or even zero electricity bills.

Give it a few years and this will be widespread. Doesn’t help the buggers living in tenements though

Though there are setups like this that can produce a bit under a kilowatt;

https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/07/23/solar-balconies-are-booming-in-germany-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-popular-home-

The cheaper the technology gets (and there's no reason why the price shouldn't fall some more), the more marginal applications become sensible.

For now, at least, it's not solar or wind, both of them can tap decent amounts of energy at a good price.

carnforth said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I drove my first ev today

My car was in for service and Mercedes courtesy car was an ECQ 250+ at a retail price of £56750

A lovely car and of course high tec, but only max of about 200 miles range which would mean our trip to Lossiemouth would require 3 stops, whereas my previous BMW took me there and back to Perth on one tank of diesel

The other thing I had not experienced was the immediate drop in speed when lifting the foot off the pedal. Mercedes told me this can be adjusted but they have it on maximum to save the battery and the range

Anyway good for fleet drivers and the wealthy but I will stick to my petrol car

This thing?

https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/what-is-one-pedal-driving-and-how-does-it-work

Sounds like it would take some getting used to.

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

SteveS said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

Ratters said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Wow.

Blistering paper by Dieter Helm on the current situation with renewables and UK (and world) move towards net zero etc etc.

Ed Miliband will most certainly not enjoy reading this one.

https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/climate-realism-time-for-a-re-set/

This bit is both true, and wildly misleading:



Specifically, solar is now so spectacularly cheap, that it is simply going to supplant the vast majority of fossil fuels, almost irrespective of government diktat.

The problem is that energy use is so elastic. As soon as energy becomes cheaper, we come up with new ways of using the stuff. So it never gets very cheap and fossil fuels remain economical.

Well, I agree that - in the medium term - energy use is pretty elastic. But it's not *that* elastic. Per capita energy consumption in the developed world peaked in the early 1970s.

And I think it's easy to miss just how cheap solar is becoming. If it's a tenth of the price per KwH of energy of gas or oil, then really, how can fossil fuels compete?

They can compete by being more controllable. Solar can't be switched on at will.

Yep, and they'll have a role - particularly gas.

But gas will only be used at night and when the wind isn't blowing.

If solar is so cheap that everything else becomes uneconomic, how will all of that infrastructure be funded?

All of what infrastructure?

The UK has gas peaking plants - OCGTs - that work perhaps 20 hours a year, when the electricity price is at its very highest level.

Modern gas plants are incredibly inexpensive to run. Unlike coal, they are low people, low maintenance, and highly automated.

You said "when the wind isn't blowing". Building and maintaining wind turbines isn't cheap.

Ummm: I thought you were talking about natural gas?

Irrespective, what does the cost of building have to do with anything? If the guy who built the wind turbines doesn't make his cost of capital or goes bust, then the wind turbines still exist, and still generate power.

There are many power plants in the UK that went bust at one point or another, usually due to over-leverage, and then got picked up for pennies on the dollar.

I was talking about everything else in the context of your panglossian view of solar.

The lifespan of a turbine is only about 20-25 years. If they're an essential part of the mix despite solar, then how will the economics stack up if the price of electricity becomes "spectacularly cheap"?

Oh, in the long run, wind doesn't make sense either. I wouldn't be queuing up to invest in wind turbines today.

But here's the chart:



That's solar price per watt over time. Basically, it's dropped by 20% every year. (Wind by contrast has improved by maybe 2%.)

A bet against solar is a bet that that 20% stops. And it might. But you'd be a brave man betting against it.

Should the likes of Spain, Portugal not be building huge wind farms with interconnectors to the rest of Europe?

Build 500%+ of their own electricity needs and become huge energy exporters.

You mean solar?

And yes, they should.

Which implies you don't think domestic solar can be sufficient, otherwise the transport costs wouldn't be worth it.

Not necessarily.

In the long term, solar panels will be so cheap that we'll cover the UK in them.

But in the medium term, panels in North Africa and the Iberian peninsular make perfect sense. And they'll keep being useful even after the UK is covered in panels, because daylight hours are so much longer in winter there.

The issue with solar is that while California's electricity demand spikes in the summer when the sun is shining and the air con is going on, the UK's demands spike in winter when it is dark 16 hours of a day and the heating is on.

Solar absolutely is great at marginal costs when it works, but I don't see it as being as reliable as eg wind etc personally.

Three or four years I would have agreed with you. However now the cost of batteries (sometimes living inside an EV) is plummeting.

We’ve not yet got a battery, but I know plenty of smug MC families bragging about their low or even zero electricity bills.

Give it a few years and this will be widespread. Doesn’t help the buggers living in tenements though

Though there are setups like this that can produce a bit under a kilowatt;

https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/07/23/solar-balconies-are-booming-in-germany-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-popular-home-

The cheaper the technology gets (and there's no reason why the price shouldn't fall some more), the more marginal applications become sensible.

For now, at least, it's not solar or wind, both of them can tap decent amounts of energy at a good price.

Got to say the only reason I haven’t got home batteries is that I can’t make the maths work once the electrician adds his costs. I find paying £1500 for a couple of hours work (which it is when I compare their prices to what I can get buy the batteries for) rather annoying.

And I suspect there isn’t much further price reductions on the batteries

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

SteveS said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

Ratters said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Wow.

Blistering paper by Dieter Helm on the current situation with renewables and UK (and world) move towards net zero etc etc.

Ed Miliband will most certainly not enjoy reading this one.

https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/climate-realism-time-for-a-re-set/

This bit is both true, and wildly misleading:



Specifically, solar is now so spectacularly cheap, that it is simply going to supplant the vast majority of fossil fuels, almost irrespective of government diktat.

The problem is that energy use is so elastic. As soon as energy becomes cheaper, we come up with new ways of using the stuff. So it never gets very cheap and fossil fuels remain economical.

Well, I agree that - in the medium term - energy use is pretty elastic. But it's not *that* elastic. Per capita energy consumption in the developed world peaked in the early 1970s.

And I think it's easy to miss just how cheap solar is becoming. If it's a tenth of the price per KwH of energy of gas or oil, then really, how can fossil fuels compete?

They can compete by being more controllable. Solar can't be switched on at will.

Yep, and they'll have a role - particularly gas.

But gas will only be used at night and when the wind isn't blowing.

If solar is so cheap that everything else becomes uneconomic, how will all of that infrastructure be funded?

All of what infrastructure?

The UK has gas peaking plants - OCGTs - that work perhaps 20 hours a year, when the electricity price is at its very highest level.

Modern gas plants are incredibly inexpensive to run. Unlike coal, they are low people, low maintenance, and highly automated.

You said "when the wind isn't blowing". Building and maintaining wind turbines isn't cheap.

Ummm: I thought you were talking about natural gas?

Irrespective, what does the cost of building have to do with anything? If the guy who built the wind turbines doesn't make his cost of capital or goes bust, then the wind turbines still exist, and still generate power.

There are many power plants in the UK that went bust at one point or another, usually due to over-leverage, and then got picked up for pennies on the dollar.

I was talking about everything else in the context of your panglossian view of solar.

The lifespan of a turbine is only about 20-25 years. If they're an essential part of the mix despite solar, then how will the economics stack up if the price of electricity becomes "spectacularly cheap"?

Oh, in the long run, wind doesn't make sense either. I wouldn't be queuing up to invest in wind turbines today.

But here's the chart:



That's solar price per watt over time. Basically, it's dropped by 20% every year. (Wind by contrast has improved by maybe 2%.)

A bet against solar is a bet that that 20% stops. And it might. But you'd be a brave man betting against it.

Should the likes of Spain, Portugal not be building huge wind farms with interconnectors to the rest of Europe?

Build 500%+ of their own electricity needs and become huge energy exporters.

You mean solar?

And yes, they should.

Which implies you don't think domestic solar can be sufficient, otherwise the transport costs wouldn't be worth it.

Not necessarily.

In the long term, solar panels will be so cheap that we'll cover the UK in them.

But in the medium term, panels in North Africa and the Iberian peninsular make perfect sense. And they'll keep being useful even after the UK is covered in panels, because daylight hours are so much longer in winter there.

The issue with solar is that while California's electricity demand spikes in the summer when the sun is shining and the air con is going on, the UK's demands spike in winter when it is dark 16 hours of a day and the heating is on.

Solar absolutely is great at marginal costs when it works, but I don't see it as being as reliable as eg wind etc personally.

Three or four years I would have agreed with you. However now the cost of batteries (sometimes living inside an EV) is plummeting.

We’ve not yet got a battery, but I know plenty of smug MC families bragging about their low or even zero electricity bills.

Give it a few years and this will be widespread. Doesn’t help the buggers living in tenements though

Though there are setups like this that can produce a bit under a kilowatt;

https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/07/23/solar-balconies-are-booming-in-germany-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-popular-home-

The cheaper the technology gets (and there's no reason why the price shouldn't fall some more), the more marginal applications become sensible.

For now, at least, it's not solar or wind, both of them can tap decent amounts of energy at a good price.

Got to say the only reason I haven’t got home batteries is that I can’t make the maths work once the electrician adds his costs. I find paying £1500 for a couple of hours work (which it is when I compare their prices to what I can get buy the batteries for) rather annoying.

And I suspect there isn’t much further price reductions on the batteries

williamglenn said:

FrankBooth said:

williamglenn said:

FrankBooth said:

rottenborough said:

Garry Kasparov
@Kasparov63
Biden should have stepped down and let Harris pardon Hunter. This would also 1) deliver the first black woman president and 2) ruin all of Trump's made-in-China "45th-47th President" merchandise!

https://x.com/Kasparov63/status/1864047573280919593

Great man.

He's also a nutter who peddled conspiracy theories about much of western history being faked.

Kasparov?

Yes. Have a read of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_chronology_(Fomenko)

carnforth said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I drove my first ev today

My car was in for service and Mercedes courtesy car was an ECQ 250+ at a retail price of £56750

A lovely car and of course high tec, but only max of about 200 miles range which would mean our trip to Lossiemouth would require 3 stops, whereas my previous BMW took me there and back to Perth on one tank of diesel

The other thing I had not experienced was the immediate drop in speed when lifting the foot off the pedal. Mercedes told me this can be adjusted but they have it on maximum to save the battery and the range

Anyway good for fleet drivers and the wealthy but I will stick to my petrol car

This thing?

https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/what-is-one-pedal-driving-and-how-does-it-work

Sounds like it would take some getting used to.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I drove my first ev today

My car was in for service and Mercedes courtesy car was an ECQ 250+ at a retail price of £56750

A lovely car and of course high tec, but only max of about 200 miles range which would mean our trip to Lossiemouth would require 3 stops, whereas my previous BMW took me there and back to Perth on one tank of diesel

The other thing I had not experienced was the immediate drop in speed when lifting the foot off the pedal. Mercedes told me this can be adjusted but they have it on maximum to save the battery and the range

Anyway good for fleet drivers and the wealthy but I will stick to my petrol car

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

Ratters said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Wow.

Blistering paper by Dieter Helm on the current situation with renewables and UK (and world) move towards net zero etc etc.

Ed Miliband will most certainly not enjoy reading this one.

https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/climate-realism-time-for-a-re-set/

This bit is both true, and wildly misleading:



Specifically, solar is now so spectacularly cheap, that it is simply going to supplant the vast majority of fossil fuels, almost irrespective of government diktat.

The problem is that energy use is so elastic. As soon as energy becomes cheaper, we come up with new ways of using the stuff. So it never gets very cheap and fossil fuels remain economical.

Well, I agree that - in the medium term - energy use is pretty elastic. But it's not *that* elastic. Per capita energy consumption in the developed world peaked in the early 1970s.

And I think it's easy to miss just how cheap solar is becoming. If it's a tenth of the price per KwH of energy of gas or oil, then really, how can fossil fuels compete?

They can compete by being more controllable. Solar can't be switched on at will.

Yep, and they'll have a role - particularly gas.

But gas will only be used at night and when the wind isn't blowing.

If solar is so cheap that everything else becomes uneconomic, how will all of that infrastructure be funded?

All of what infrastructure?

The UK has gas peaking plants - OCGTs - that work perhaps 20 hours a year, when the electricity price is at its very highest level.

Modern gas plants are incredibly inexpensive to run. Unlike coal, they are low people, low maintenance, and highly automated.

You said "when the wind isn't blowing". Building and maintaining wind turbines isn't cheap.

Ummm: I thought you were talking about natural gas?

Irrespective, what does the cost of building have to do with anything? If the guy who built the wind turbines doesn't make his cost of capital or goes bust, then the wind turbines still exist, and still generate power.

There are many power plants in the UK that went bust at one point or another, usually due to over-leverage, and then got picked up for pennies on the dollar.

I was talking about everything else in the context of your panglossian view of solar.

The lifespan of a turbine is only about 20-25 years. If they're an essential part of the mix despite solar, then how will the economics stack up if the price of electricity becomes "spectacularly cheap"?

Oh, in the long run, wind doesn't make sense either. I wouldn't be queuing up to invest in wind turbines today.

But here's the chart:



That's solar price per watt over time. Basically, it's dropped by 20% every year. (Wind by contrast has improved by maybe 2%.)

A bet against solar is a bet that that 20% stops. And it might. But you'd be a brave man betting against it.

Should the likes of Spain, Portugal not be building huge wind farms with interconnectors to the rest of Europe?

Build 500%+ of their own electricity needs and become huge energy exporters.

You mean solar?

And yes, they should.

Which implies you don't think domestic solar can be sufficient, otherwise the transport costs wouldn't be worth it.

Not necessarily.

In the long term, solar panels will be so cheap that we'll cover the UK in them.

But in the medium term, panels in North Africa and the Iberian peninsular make perfect sense. And they'll keep being useful even after the UK is covered in panels, because daylight hours are so much longer in winter there.

The issue with solar is that while California's electricity demand spikes in the summer when the sun is shining and the air con is going on, the UK's demands spike in winter when it is dark 16 hours of a day and the heating is on.

Solar absolutely is great at marginal costs when it works, but I don't see it as being as reliable as eg wind etc personally.

No_Offence_Alan said:

HYUFD said:

Ratters said:

HYUFD said:

Even if Labour does remain in office it will be scraping home in a hung parliament propped up by the LDs most likely, the price of which will be an end to the tractor tax and restored WFPs. The cost of living crisis is hitting Labour as much as other incumbent governments across the world but Starmer and Reeves have only exacerbated the impact by their decision making

The Lib Dems would be mad to focus on those policies being the price of support. They would focus elsewhere.

The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.

They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again

Once these become enacted, no sane party is going to propose reversing them.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I drove my first ev today

My car was in for service and Mercedes courtesy car was an ECQ 250+ at a retail price of £56750

A lovely car and of course high tec, but only max of about 200 miles range which would mean our trip to Lossiemouth would require 3 stops, whereas my previous BMW took me there and back to Perth on one tank of diesel

The other thing I had not experienced was the immediate drop in speed when lifting the foot off the pedal. Mercedes told me this can be adjusted but they have it on maximum to save the battery and the range

Anyway good for fleet drivers and the wealthy but I will stick to my petrol car

My Leaf has a range of settings for "engine braking", ranging from one pedal driving for stop-start traffic to almost none for the open road. These are all selectable as you drive, and it doesn't affect range at all given that all but the hardest braking is regenerative. It does take a little while to get to know a car.

HYUFD said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

HYUFD said:

Ratters said:

HYUFD said:

Even if Labour does remain in office it will be scraping home in a hung parliament propped up by the LDs most likely, the price of which will be an end to the tractor tax and restored WFPs. The cost of living crisis is hitting Labour as much as other incumbent governments across the world but Starmer and Reeves have only exacerbated the impact by their decision making

The Lib Dems would be mad to focus on those policies being the price of support. They would focus elsewhere.

The LDs official policy is to oppose the WFA cut and the tractor tax, they are going for the pensioner and farmer vote who have a significant presence in LD home counties seats and they won't give Starmer any confidence and supply unless he concedes on both.

They have learnt their lesson from Clegg they need to play more hardball if they hold the balance of power again

Once these become enacted, no sane party is going to propose reversing them.

Of course they are, they are both disastrous, awful, vindictive policies.

Many of the LDs voters now are pensioners and farmers, they will rightly demand Starmer drops them as will every other opposition party or he can forget any confidence and supply deal if he loses his majority