Good news. But read somewhere that Theresa May actually gave approval for a third runway at Heathrow, yet here we still are…
Another piece of fuck wittery from Boris Johnson and Zac Goldsmith we are still dealing with today.
Johnson should have overruled Cummings during the Brexit campaign and made the slogan: "We send £350m a week to the EU. Let's spend it on our infrastructure instead."
Infrastructure = definitely not London, oh no, certainly not.
The Americans have a plan to go to Mars. We'd be lucky to reach Birmingham.
They don't have a 'plan' to go to Mars.
Some of them have an aspiration, and none of the tools required to go there are anywhere near ready. (Albeit one tool is in development).
Calling it a 'plan' is a bit like saying I have a plan to do an Ironman. It could conceivably happen, but not without a lot of planning, work and effort of a fair few years...
Mars is a 3 year return journey isn't it?
Having seen some of the health issues in spacepeople from much shorter flights, I wouldn't fancy that at all. Come back an irradiated cripple? No thanks.
They have suggested sending families on the journey, but can you imagine the kids saying "are we there yet?".
So, Starmer and Cooper's statements. Sincere or narrative shifting? Of course we still await the sentencing and Judge's remarks in this very opaque case.
John Stepek @John_Stepek You know if we're going to build a few more runways, maybe it would be intellectually consistent and growth-oriented to drill for a bit of oil and gas too
It's interesting the contrast with Norway. New oil and gas drilling... But also 90% of new cars are electric.
One follows from the other, I think.
When you've got a sovereign wealth fund worth $330,000 a person as a nation everyone can afford a Tesla.
There are some very specific tax reasons why Norway started getting electric cars so early on
SCOOP: President Trump is set to announce billions of dollars in private sector investment to build artificial intelligence infrastructure in the United States, @CBSNews has learned. OpenAI, Softbank and Oracle are planning a joint venture called Stargate, according to multiple people familiar with the deal.
There does appear to have been a fair amount of planning done by the new Trump administration, which was very much not done back in 2017.
Nothing to do with Trump that computer has been in development for ages now.
John Stepek @John_Stepek You know if we're going to build a few more runways, maybe it would be intellectually consistent and growth-oriented to drill for a bit of oil and gas too
It's interesting the contrast with Norway. New oil and gas drilling... But also 90% of new cars are electric.
One follows from the other, I think.
When you've got a sovereign wealth fund worth $330,000 a person as a nation everyone can afford a Tesla.
There are some very specific tax reasons why Norway started getting electric cars so early on
Back in 2010, they allowed electric cars to use the bus lanes in Oslo, which was also a big driver of demand.
Until everyone did it and the buses ran late?
Exactly! When the Tesla Model 3 was launched then electric vehicle demand exploded, and they had to remove the privilege. (Which made my former boss very unhappy. He thought people who had bought the first electric vehicles should keep the privilege. The Norwegian government disagreed.)
SCOOP: President Trump is set to announce billions of dollars in private sector investment to build artificial intelligence infrastructure in the United States, @CBSNews has learned. OpenAI, Softbank and Oracle are planning a joint venture called Stargate, according to multiple people familiar with the deal.
There does appear to have been a fair amount of planning done by the new Trump administration, which was very much not done back in 2017.
Nothing to do with Trump that computer has been in development for ages now.
Trump is an absolute expert at claiming credit for things that were already in the works!
John Stepek @John_Stepek You know if we're going to build a few more runways, maybe it would be intellectually consistent and growth-oriented to drill for a bit of oil and gas too
It's interesting the contrast with Norway. New oil and gas drilling... But also 90% of new cars are electric.
Because they have lots of oil and gas to provide consistent electricity for them.
Norway's electricity is almost entirely renewable: 88% of power is provided by hydroelectricity.
It's interesting that Germany's decision to end nuclear power is forcing Norway to reconsider selling electricity to them because the spikes in demand push up prices for Norwegians even though they are self-sufficient.
How does that make sense? If Norway is self-sufficient and exporting to Germany, then spikes in price can only be good for Norway - they get more money for the same number of electrons.
It's not good for Norwegian consumers whose bills go up.
Why would Norwegian consumer bills go up? It would be the opposite. High prices are great if you're a country that exports electricity. The Norwegian power companies would get more money from exports, so they wouldn't need to charge domestic consumers so much.
Where did you actually see it reported that Norway is to reconsider selling electricity to Germany?
Electricity is a fungible good (ignoring transmission lists, etc).
So if you can sell for 100 to Germany or 10 to Norway you sell to Germany
Consumers always pay the marginal cost (unless they have hedged)
Yep:
And there is also the impact of some industries that are just proxies for energy: nitrogen fertilizers, aluminum smelting, and purifying silicon to name but three. If the price of energy moves in one place, then production in another jumps up to compensate.
Which is why it didn't matter how dependent or not you are on Russian gas, you got the same impact from their removal from the gas market.
Taking this to its logical conclusion, would you argue that there's no point having a national energy policy at all?
I think there's a good case for taxing negative externalities, freeing up the planning process, and letting the market decide.
With that said, there are still a few projects where the government probably needs to play a role. I think the lack of has storage in the UK (a common good problem) meant that UK generators needed to pay whatever it took to secure LNG cargoes, while countries with significant storage facilities were able to take much more of a wait and see attitude.
LNG storage, and SMR Nuclear which has massive export potential.
I tend to be very sceptical of nuclear power, simply because it has never been delivered economically viably before. If Rolls Royce wants to spend their money on it, they are free to do so, but should UK taxpayers be footing the bill? (The government has a rotten record at picking winners.)
Well there are three companies, in three countries, trying to push similar technology.
UK, USA, China.
The American company is about to drop out, pausing development having failed to receive an order, so either the UK government gets behind RR or the whole potential worldwide market goes to China.
A sensible UK government would be able to structure a deal where the risk of a failure to deliver lies with the company rather than with the government, but it was many years since I last understood risk management in UK government contracts.
John Stepek @John_Stepek You know if we're going to build a few more runways, maybe it would be intellectually consistent and growth-oriented to drill for a bit of oil and gas too
It's interesting the contrast with Norway. New oil and gas drilling... But also 90% of new cars are electric.
One follows from the other, I think.
When you've got a sovereign wealth fund worth $330,000 a person as a nation everyone can afford a Tesla.
There are some very specific tax reasons why Norway started getting electric cars so early on
Michael Crick thinks there’s a big story in the Tulip Siddiq saga.
I doubt it. Enough to end Tulip Sidiq's career seems very plausible, particularly as British Bangladeshis won't be scared to the same extent of the Awami League and may come forward. But the wider impact on the average UK voter is likely to be small I would think
John Stepek @John_Stepek You know if we're going to build a few more runways, maybe it would be intellectually consistent and growth-oriented to drill for a bit of oil and gas too
It's interesting the contrast with Norway. New oil and gas drilling... But also 90% of new cars are electric.
Because they have lots of oil and gas to provide consistent electricity for them.
Norway's electricity is almost entirely renewable: 88% of power is provided by hydroelectricity.
It's interesting that Germany's decision to end nuclear power is forcing Norway to reconsider selling electricity to them because the spikes in demand push up prices for Norwegians even though they are self-sufficient.
How does that make sense? If Norway is self-sufficient and exporting to Germany, then spikes in price can only be good for Norway - they get more money for the same number of electrons.
It's not good for Norwegian consumers whose bills go up.
Why would Norwegian consumer bills go up? It would be the opposite. High prices are great if you're a country that exports electricity. The Norwegian power companies would get more money from exports, so they wouldn't need to charge domestic consumers so much.
Where did you actually see it reported that Norway is to reconsider selling electricity to Germany?
Electricity is a fungible good (ignoring transmission lists, etc).
So if you can sell for 100 to Germany or 10 to Norway you sell to Germany
Consumers always pay the marginal cost (unless they have hedged)
Yep:
And there is also the impact of some industries that are just proxies for energy: nitrogen fertilizers, aluminum smelting, and purifying silicon to name but three. If the price of energy moves in one place, then production in another jumps up to compensate.
Which is why it didn't matter how dependent or not you are on Russian gas, you got the same impact from their removal from the gas market.
Taking this to its logical conclusion, would you argue that there's no point having a national energy policy at all?
I think there's a good case for taxing negative externalities, freeing up the planning process, and letting the market decide.
With that said, there are still a few projects where the government probably needs to play a role. I think the lack of has storage in the UK (a common good problem) meant that UK generators needed to pay whatever it took to secure LNG cargoes, while countries with significant storage facilities were able to take much more of a wait and see attitude.
LNG storage, and SMR Nuclear which has massive export potential.
I tend to be very sceptical of nuclear power, simply because it has never been delivered economically viably before. If Rolls Royce wants to spend their money on it, they are free to do so, but should UK taxpayers be footing the bill? (The government has a rotten record at picking winners.)
Well there are three companies, in three countries, trying to push similar technology.
UK, USA, China.
The American company is about to drop out, pausing development having failed to receive an order, so either the UK government gets behind RR or the whole potential worldwide market goes to China.
A sensible UK government would be able to structure a deal where the risk of a failure to deliver lies with the company rather than with the government, but it was many years since I last understood risk management in UK government contracts.
I thought there were orders or at least finance for Westinghouse's reactors?
John Stepek @John_Stepek You know if we're going to build a few more runways, maybe it would be intellectually consistent and growth-oriented to drill for a bit of oil and gas too
It's interesting the contrast with Norway. New oil and gas drilling... But also 90% of new cars are electric.
Because they have lots of oil and gas to provide consistent electricity for them.
Nope
Interesting info, but within the small percentage of energy needs not supplied by (totally dependable) hydro, it's pretty clear that it is gas doing the heavy lifting.
Heavy lifting within a small percentage is still a small percentage.
I am not against reliable renewables, even if the set up cost is high. It would be insane not to be. That's why I am heavily in favour of tidal. I am against wind because it's shit, buggers everything up, and wastes a huge amount of money. Which is also why it's loved by people who want to turn a buck.
John Stepek @John_Stepek You know if we're going to build a few more runways, maybe it would be intellectually consistent and growth-oriented to drill for a bit of oil and gas too
It's interesting the contrast with Norway. New oil and gas drilling... But also 90% of new cars are electric.
Because they have lots of oil and gas to provide consistent electricity for them.
Norway's electricity is almost entirely renewable: 88% of power is provided by hydroelectricity.
It's interesting that Germany's decision to end nuclear power is forcing Norway to reconsider selling electricity to them because the spikes in demand push up prices for Norwegians even though they are self-sufficient.
How does that make sense? If Norway is self-sufficient and exporting to Germany, then spikes in price can only be good for Norway - they get more money for the same number of electrons.
It's not good for Norwegian consumers whose bills go up.
Why would Norwegian consumer bills go up? It would be the opposite. High prices are great if you're a country that exports electricity. The Norwegian power companies would get more money from exports, so they wouldn't need to charge domestic consumers so much.
Where did you actually see it reported that Norway is to reconsider selling electricity to Germany?
Electricity is a fungible good (ignoring transmission lists, etc).
So if you can sell for 100 to Germany or 10 to Norway you sell to Germany
Consumers always pay the marginal cost (unless they have hedged)
Yep:
And there is also the impact of some industries that are just proxies for energy: nitrogen fertilizers, aluminum smelting, and purifying silicon to name but three. If the price of energy moves in one place, then production in another jumps up to compensate.
Which is why it didn't matter how dependent or not you are on Russian gas, you got the same impact from their removal from the gas market.
Taking this to its logical conclusion, would you argue that there's no point having a national energy policy at all?
I think there's a good case for taxing negative externalities, freeing up the planning process, and letting the market decide.
With that said, there are still a few projects where the government probably needs to play a role. I think the lack of has storage in the UK (a common good problem) meant that UK generators needed to pay whatever it took to secure LNG cargoes, while countries with significant storage facilities were able to take much more of a wait and see attitude.
LNG storage, and SMR Nuclear which has massive export potential.
I tend to be very sceptical of nuclear power, simply because it has never been delivered economically viably before. If Rolls Royce wants to spend their money on it, they are free to do so, but should UK taxpayers be footing the bill? (The government has a rotten record at picking winners.)
Well there are three companies, in three countries, trying to push similar technology.
UK, USA, China.
The American company is about to drop out, pausing development having failed to receive an order, so either the UK government gets behind RR or the whole potential worldwide market goes to China.
A sensible UK government would be able to structure a deal where the risk of a failure to deliver lies with the company rather than with the government, but it was many years since I last understood risk management in UK government contracts.
The sane approach is to buy a couple.
Payment due when reactors delivered, with a specified power output, passing safety inspections etc. Contract penalties for under performance.
Michael Crick thinks there’s a big story in the Tulip Siddiq saga.
I doubt it. Enough to end Tulip Sidiq's career seems very plausible, particularly as British Bangladeshis won't be scared to the same extent of the Awami League and may come forward. But the wider impact on the average UK voter is likely to be small I would think
The UK's Leader of the opposition and Leader of the Labour Party Sir Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) has paid a courtesy call to HPM Sheikh Hasina today at the Hotel Claridge in London today (17th September).
Good news. But read somewhere that Theresa May actually gave approval for a third runway at Heathrow, yet here we still are…
Another piece of fuck wittery from Boris Johnson and Zac Goldsmith we are still dealing with today.
Johnson should have overruled Cummings during the Brexit campaign and made the slogan: "We send £350m a week to the EU. Let's spend it on our infrastructure instead."
Infrastructure = definitely not London, oh no, certainly not.
The Americans have a plan to go to Mars. We'd be lucky to reach Birmingham.
They don't have a 'plan' to go to Mars.
Some of them have an aspiration, and none of the tools required to go there are anywhere near ready. (Albeit one tool is in development).
Calling it a 'plan' is a bit like saying I have a plan to do an Ironman. It could conceivably happen, but not without a lot of planning, work and effort of a fair few years...
The plan for Starship/SuperHeavy to launch into Earth orbit, refuel the Starship (second stage), Mars departure, aerobrake into the atmosphere and land is available at a fair level of detail.
Tom Mueller spent a fair amount of time working on a Sabatier plant to convert Martian atmosphere to methane, to refuel the landed vehicle for return journey.
It’s certainly planned to a greater level of detail than NASA has ever done for a Mars landing. And a fair bit of actual metal has welded in the implementation phase.
The first tests of aerobraking Starship in the Martian atmosphere will be conducted in the next 3-5 years, I think.
That sounds as though there will be a fair bit of scrap space-ware lying around to become raw materials later.
John Stepek @John_Stepek You know if we're going to build a few more runways, maybe it would be intellectually consistent and growth-oriented to drill for a bit of oil and gas too
It's interesting the contrast with Norway. New oil and gas drilling... But also 90% of new cars are electric.
One follows from the other, I think.
When you've got a sovereign wealth fund worth $330,000 a person as a nation everyone can afford a Tesla.
There are some very specific tax reasons why Norway started getting electric cars so early on
Back in 2010, they allowed electric cars to use the bus lanes in Oslo, which was also a big driver of demand.
Until everyone did it and the buses ran late?
Exactly! When the Tesla Model 3 was launched then electric vehicle demand exploded, and they had to remove the privilege. (Which made my former boss very unhappy. He thought people who had bought the first electric vehicles should keep the privilege. The Norwegian government disagreed.)
SCOOP: President Trump is set to announce billions of dollars in private sector investment to build artificial intelligence infrastructure in the United States, @CBSNews has learned. OpenAI, Softbank and Oracle are planning a joint venture called Stargate, according to multiple people familiar with the deal.
There does appear to have been a fair amount of planning done by the new Trump administration, which was very much not done back in 2017.
Nothing to do with Trump that computer has been in development for ages now.
Trump is an absolute expert at claiming credit for things that were already in the works!
Not sure if he can pull it off but I heard he is going to give us extra daylight each day for the next few months as a reward for making him King. By contrast, the last few months of Bidens corrupt regime had less daylight.
It’s nice that famous musicians are doing a concert to raise money for victims of the LA fires but am amused by the act second on the bill after Billie Eilish. Unfortunate choice of band under the circumstances.
Good news. But read somewhere that Theresa May actually gave approval for a third runway at Heathrow, yet here we still are…
Another piece of fuck wittery from Boris Johnson and Zac Goldsmith we are still dealing with today.
Johnson should have overruled Cummings during the Brexit campaign and made the slogan: "We send £350m a week to the EU. Let's spend it on our infrastructure instead."
Infrastructure = definitely not London, oh no, certainly not.
The Americans have a plan to go to Mars. We'd be lucky to reach Birmingham.
They don't have a 'plan' to go to Mars.
Some of them have an aspiration, and none of the tools required to go there are anywhere near ready. (Albeit one tool is in development).
Calling it a 'plan' is a bit like saying I have a plan to do an Ironman. It could conceivably happen, but not without a lot of planning, work and effort of a fair few years...
The plan for Starship/SuperHeavy to launch into Earth orbit, refuel the Starship (second stage), Mars departure, aerobrake into the atmosphere and land is available at a fair level of detail.
Tom Mueller spent a fair amount of time working on a Sabatier plant to convert Martian atmosphere to methane, to refuel the landed vehicle for return journey.
It’s certainly planned to a greater level of detail than NASA has ever done for a Mars landing. And a fair bit of actual metal has welded in the implementation phase.
The first tests of aerobraking Starship in the Martian atmosphere will be conducted in the next 3-5 years, I think.
That sounds as though there will be a fair bit of scrap space-ware lying around to become raw materials later.
Good evening, everybody.
Yes, there will. Current plans are to have multiple Starships with varying designs make first trips, to test Martian re entry.
Which will be quite sporting - it will involve flying upside down in the upper Martian atmosphere. Using negative lift, to stay inside the atmosphere.
Michael Crick thinks there’s a big story in the Tulip Siddiq saga.
I doubt it. Enough to end Tulip Sidiq's career seems very plausible, particularly as British Bangladeshis won't be scared to the same extent of the Awami League and may come forward. But the wider impact on the average UK voter is likely to be small I would think
The UK's Leader of the opposition and Leader of the Labour Party Sir Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) has paid a courtesy call to HPM Sheikh Hasina today at the Hotel Claridge in London today (17th September).
Things that ought to matter, often don't. I doubt voters without direct links to Bangladeshi politics will distinguish one unpleasant regime from any of the others dotted about.
It’s nice that famous musicians are doing a concert to raise money for victims of the LA fires but am amused by the act second on the bill after Billie Eilish. Unfortunate choice of band under the circumstances.
They could also try and get:
Adele - Set Fire to the Rain Alicia Keys - This Girl is on Fire
Maybe some cover bands could add in Disco Inferno and Great Balls of Fire.
The Home Secretary is appalled that Axel Rudakubana was easily able to order a knife on Amazon.
"That's a total disgrace and it must change. So, we will bring in stronger measures to tackle knife sales online in the Crime and Policing Bill this spring." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c9q7r4wpep0t
Cooper ignores that Rudakubana murdered the girls using an ordinary kitchen knife, freely available from any kitchen, as the name suggests.
We are being played for fools.
While the knife used was not the one ordered online - the fact some firms are not age verifying mail order knife purchases does need to be fixed.
It is even worse than that. Yvette Cooper is appalled that Amazon sold Rudakubana a knife despite his having a prior conviction. Does the government expect Amazon to carry out a DBS check? Will there be a new database where retailers can look up their customers?
Does anyone still think the government's online identity database will be kept secure?
With alcohol (for example) the Amazon delivery guy has to check for “over 18”.
Good news. But read somewhere that Theresa May actually gave approval for a third runway at Heathrow, yet here we still are…
Another piece of fuck wittery from Boris Johnson and Zac Goldsmith we are still dealing with today.
Johnson should have overruled Cummings during the Brexit campaign and made the slogan: "We send £350m a week to the EU. Let's spend it on our infrastructure instead."
Infrastructure = definitely not London, oh no, certainly not.
The Americans have a plan to go to Mars. We'd be lucky to reach Birmingham.
Not an oft heard phrase.
Clearly you've never joined the M6 southbound at Junction 11 in rush hour.
It’s nice that famous musicians are doing a concert to raise money for victims of the LA fires but am amused by the act second on the bill after Billie Eilish. Unfortunate choice of band under the circumstances.
They could also try and get:
Adele - Set Fire to the Rain Alicia Keys - This Girl is on Fire
Maybe some cover bands could add in Disco Inferno and Great Balls of Fire.
An obvious one: Billy Joel with "We didn't start the fire"
John Stepek @John_Stepek You know if we're going to build a few more runways, maybe it would be intellectually consistent and growth-oriented to drill for a bit of oil and gas too
It's interesting the contrast with Norway. New oil and gas drilling... But also 90% of new cars are electric.
Because they have lots of oil and gas to provide consistent electricity for them.
Norway's electricity is almost entirely renewable: 88% of power is provided by hydroelectricity.
It's interesting that Germany's decision to end nuclear power is forcing Norway to reconsider selling electricity to them because the spikes in demand push up prices for Norwegians even though they are self-sufficient.
How does that make sense? If Norway is self-sufficient and exporting to Germany, then spikes in price can only be good for Norway - they get more money for the same number of electrons.
It's not good for Norwegian consumers whose bills go up.
Why would Norwegian consumer bills go up? It would be the opposite. High prices are great if you're a country that exports electricity. The Norwegian power companies would get more money from exports, so they wouldn't need to charge domestic consumers so much.
Where did you actually see it reported that Norway is to reconsider selling electricity to Germany?
Electricity is a fungible good (ignoring transmission lists, etc).
So if you can sell for 100 to Germany or 10 to Norway you sell to Germany
Consumers always pay the marginal cost (unless they have hedged)
Yep:
And there is also the impact of some industries that are just proxies for energy: nitrogen fertilizers, aluminum smelting, and purifying silicon to name but three. If the price of energy moves in one place, then production in another jumps up to compensate.
Which is why it didn't matter how dependent or not you are on Russian gas, you got the same impact from their removal from the gas market.
Taking this to its logical conclusion, would you argue that there's no point having a national energy policy at all?
I think there's a good case for taxing negative externalities, freeing up the planning process, and letting the market decide.
With that said, there are still a few projects where the government probably needs to play a role. I think the lack of has storage in the UK (a common good problem) meant that UK generators needed to pay whatever it took to secure LNG cargoes, while countries with significant storage facilities were able to take much more of a wait and see attitude.
LNG storage, and SMR Nuclear which has massive export potential.
This SMR Nuclear?
"the failure of the much-anticipated proof case for advanced nuclear alongside the X-Energy market retreat left many questioning whether next generation nuclear could live up to its promises."
Good news. But read somewhere that Theresa May actually gave approval for a third runway at Heathrow, yet here we still are…
Another piece of fuck wittery from Boris Johnson and Zac Goldsmith we are still dealing with today.
Johnson should have overruled Cummings during the Brexit campaign and made the slogan: "We send £350m a week to the EU. Let's spend it on our infrastructure instead."
Infrastructure = definitely not London, oh no, certainly not.
The Americans have a plan to go to Mars. We'd be lucky to reach Birmingham.
They don't have a 'plan' to go to Mars.
Some of them have an aspiration, and none of the tools required to go there are anywhere near ready. (Albeit one tool is in development).
Calling it a 'plan' is a bit like saying I have a plan to do an Ironman. It could conceivably happen, but not without a lot of planning, work and effort of a fair few years...
The plan for Starship/SuperHeavy to launch into Earth orbit, refuel the Starship (second stage), Mars departure, aerobrake into the atmosphere and land is available at a fair level of detail.
Tom Mueller spent a fair amount of time working on a Sabatier plant to convert Martian atmosphere to methane, to refuel the landed vehicle for return journey.
It’s certainly planned to a greater level of detail than NASA has ever done for a Mars landing. And a fair bit of actual metal has welded in the implementation phase.
The first tests of aerobraking Starship in the Martian atmosphere will be conducted in the next 3-5 years, I think.
That sounds as though there will be a fair bit of scrap space-ware lying around to become raw materials later.
Good evening, everybody.
Yes, there will. Current plans are to have multiple Starships with varying designs make first trips, to test Martian re entry.
Which will be quite sporting - it will involve flying upside down in the upper Martian atmosphere. Using negative lift, to stay inside the atmosphere.
They are actively working on the human habs element too and have been for some time, I know the chap working on it. I give it better than evens that by the time of our next election, Starship has delivered some serious hardware to the Martian surface, including the first life (self contained plant life ala Musks original pre-SpaceX plan). I’m imagining a solar power plant, sabatier demo plant and ground comms, built out by humanoid robots. With some long distance ground transport of course for humanoid robot-led science missions. You can do all that with probably 4 successful ships landing on Mission 1. Core backbone of Martian - Earth internet not until the next transfer window I suppose.
Much of the timing will depend on how quickly they can successfully demo orbital refuelling, last week’s little disassembly doesn’t help but isn’t fatal. It will be a hard wake-up for the “Musk is a baby / Nazi” types here and elsewhere when it comes to fruition.
What could possibly go wrong, some people asked? The way this is being handled should set off all sorts of alarm bells.
Rajiv Shah @RajivShah90 The Terminally Ill Adults Bill Committee has just voted 14 to 8 against calling oral evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists
I have no words 4:16 pm · 21 Jan 2025
Leadbetter is a disgrace. And so is Starmer if he really is behind this. Something as sensitive as this needs the fullest proper scrutiny not this rushed hole in the corner affair which seeks to avoid or minimise scrutiny. A PMB is the wrong route for such a law.
A summary of the ways this going wrong:
- She only produced the Bill18 days before the vote - She made at least two misleading statements to the Commons: one about judicial support and one that no equivalent law in other countries has ever been expanded (untrue - see Canada). - She has stacked the Committee with supporters and the balance in favour of the a bill is far greater than what the vote actually reflected. She has refused to have on the Committee any of the MPs with actual medical experience if they have reservations. - She has delayed for 6 weeks the call for evidence. - The meeting to decide what evidence should be called has been in private. The motion to do so was proposed at the last minute without any explanation. This means that not only was the public unable to hear the deliberations but no record of what was said will be made and kept. - She only sent round her witness list a week ago and then changed it at the last minute with the Committee only being told today. - Of these witnesses, 8 are supporters from other jurisdictions. There are no opponents. - Of the 9 lawyers, 6 are in favour of the Bill and 3 neutral. Again there are no opponents. - There are no witnesses from disability organisations, all of whom are against the Bill. - She is refusing to hear evidence from Canada because it comes from a jurisdiction that's too legally dissimilar. This is garbage given the similarities between English law and Canadian law and, especially, given that Canada's law was limited to terminally ill adults like the proposed Bill. The real reason she does not want this evidence is that it would show precisely how such a Bill can be abused and how it can be expanded using anti-discrimination provisions available in English and ECHR jurisprudence.The latter, in particular, is precisely what Leadbetter has said cannot happen. That was a nonsense statement when she made it in the Commons - as a number of lawyers pointed out.
If Parliament is to do its job properly, scrutinising and understanding what has happened in Canada is exactly what it should be doing.
Leadbetter is behaving like a Paula Vennells: telling untruths to Parliament, showing contempt for Parliamentary scrutiny and those who have real concerns about what this will mean, a high-handed attitude to due process and what it is for and a determination to listen only to those who will tell her what she wants to hear.
We are watching the makings of a scandal unfold in real time.
What could possibly go wrong, some people asked? The way this is being handled should set off all sorts of alarm bells.
Rajiv Shah @RajivShah90 The Terminally Ill Adults Bill Committee has just voted 14 to 8 against calling oral evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists
I have no words 4:16 pm · 21 Jan 2025
Leadbetter is a disgrace. And so is Starmer if he really is behind this. Something as sensitive as this needs the fullest proper scrutiny not this rushed hole in the corner affair which seeks to avoid or minimise scrutiny. A PMB is the wrong route for such a law.
A summary of the ways this going wrong:
- She only produced the Bill18 days before the vote - She made at least two misleading statements to the Commons: one about judicial support and one that no equivalent law in other countries has ever been expanded (untrue - see Canada). - She has stacked the Committee with supporters and the balance in favour of the a bill is far greater than what the vote actually reflected. She has refused to have on the Committee any of the MPs with actual medical experience if they have reservations. - She has delayed for 6 weeks the call for evidence. - The meeting to decide what evidence should be called has been in private. The motion to do so was proposed at the last minute without any explanation. This means that not only was the public unable to hear the deliberations but no record of what was said will be made and kept. - She only sent round her witness list a week ago and then changed it at the last minute with the Committee only being told today. - Of these witnesses, 8 are supporters from other jurisdictions. There are no opponents. - Of the 9 lawyers, 6 are in favour of the Bill and 3 neutral. Again there are no opponents. - There are no witnesses from disability organisations, all of whom are against the Bill. - She is refusing to hear evidence from Canada because it comes from a jurisdiction that's too legally dissimilar. This is garbage given the similarities between English law and Canadian law and, especially, given that Canada's law was limited to terminally ill adults like the proposed Bill. The real reason she does not want this evidence is that it would show precisely how such a Bill can be abused and how it can be expanded using anti-discrimination provisions available in English and ECHR jurisprudence.The latter, in particular, is precisely what Leadbetter has said cannot happen. That was a nonsense statement when she made it in the Commons - as a number of lawyers pointed out.
If Parliament is to do its job properly, scrutinising and understanding what has happened in Canada is exactly what it should be doing.
Leadbetter is behaving like a Paula Vennells: telling untruths to Parliament, showing contempt for Parliamentary scrutiny and those who have real concerns about what this will mean, a high-handed attitude to due process and what it is for and a determination to listen only to those who will tell her what she wants to hear.
We are watching the makings of a scandal unfold in real time.
It’s b een a long time since I read up on parliament process but does the sponsor of the bill usually control the scrutiny committee?
SCOOP: President Trump is set to announce billions of dollars in private sector investment to build artificial intelligence infrastructure in the United States, @CBSNews has learned. OpenAI, Softbank and Oracle are planning a joint venture called Stargate, according to multiple people familiar with the deal.
There does appear to have been a fair amount of planning done by the new Trump administration, which was very much not done back in 2017.
Wasn't this a dodgy TV series where every planet looked the same and everyone, somewhat fortuitously, spoke English, whilst having a pastiche of some ridiculously plastic version of some part of our history... actually this is starting to sound believable.
What could possibly go wrong, some people asked? The way this is being handled should set off all sorts of alarm bells.
Rajiv Shah @RajivShah90 The Terminally Ill Adults Bill Committee has just voted 14 to 8 against calling oral evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists
I have no words 4:16 pm · 21 Jan 2025
Leadbetter is a disgrace. And so is Starmer if he really is behind this. Something as sensitive as this needs the fullest proper scrutiny not this rushed hole in the corner affair which seeks to avoid or minimise scrutiny. A PMB is the wrong route for such a law.
A summary of the ways this going wrong:
- She only produced the Bill18 days before the vote - She made at least two misleading statements to the Commons: one about judicial support and one that no equivalent law in other countries has ever been expanded (untrue - see Canada). - She has stacked the Committee with supporters and the balance in favour of the a bill is far greater than what the vote actually reflected. She has refused to have on the Committee any of the MPs with actual medical experience if they have reservations. - She has delayed for 6 weeks the call for evidence. - The meeting to decide what evidence should be called has been in private. The motion to do so was proposed at the last minute without any explanation. This means that not only was the public unable to hear the deliberations but no record of what was said will be made and kept. - She only sent round her witness list a week ago and then changed it at the last minute with the Committee only being told today. - Of these witnesses, 8 are supporters from other jurisdictions. There are no opponents. - Of the 9 lawyers, 6 are in favour of the Bill and 3 neutral. Again there are no opponents. - There are no witnesses from disability organisations, all of whom are against the Bill. - She is refusing to hear evidence from Canada because it comes from a jurisdiction that's too legally dissimilar. This is garbage given the similarities between English law and Canadian law and, especially, given that Canada's law was limited to terminally ill adults like the proposed Bill. The real reason she does not want this evidence is that it would show precisely how such a Bill can be abused and how it can be expanded using anti-discrimination provisions available in English and ECHR jurisprudence.The latter, in particular, is precisely what Leadbetter has said cannot happen. That was a nonsense statement when she made it in the Commons - as a number of lawyers pointed out.
If Parliament is to do its job properly, scrutinising and understanding what has happened in Canada is exactly what it should be doing.
Leadbetter is behaving like a Paula Vennells: telling untruths to Parliament, showing contempt for Parliamentary scrutiny and those who have real concerns about what this will mean, a high-handed attitude to due process and what it is for and a determination to listen only to those who will tell her what she wants to hear.
We are watching the makings of a scandal unfold in real time.
Come on now, its hardly a matter of life and death.
What could possibly go wrong, some people asked? The way this is being handled should set off all sorts of alarm bells.
Rajiv Shah @RajivShah90 The Terminally Ill Adults Bill Committee has just voted 14 to 8 against calling oral evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists
I have no words 4:16 pm · 21 Jan 2025
Leadbetter is a disgrace. And so is Starmer if he really is behind this. Something as sensitive as this needs the fullest proper scrutiny not this rushed hole in the corner affair which seeks to avoid or minimise scrutiny. A PMB is the wrong route for such a law.
A summary of the ways this going wrong:
- She only produced the Bill18 days before the vote - She made at least two misleading statements to the Commons: one about judicial support and one that no equivalent law in other countries has ever been expanded (untrue - see Canada). - She has stacked the Committee with supporters and the balance in favour of the a bill is far greater than what the vote actually reflected. She has refused to have on the Committee any of the MPs with actual medical experience if they have reservations. - She has delayed for 6 weeks the call for evidence. - The meeting to decide what evidence should be called has been in private. The motion to do so was proposed at the last minute without any explanation. This means that not only was the public unable to hear the deliberations but no record of what was said will be made and kept. - She only sent round her witness list a week ago and then changed it at the last minute with the Committee only being told today. - Of these witnesses, 8 are supporters from other jurisdictions. There are no opponents. - Of the 9 lawyers, 6 are in favour of the Bill and 3 neutral. Again there are no opponents. - There are no witnesses from disability organisations, all of whom are against the Bill. - She is refusing to hear evidence from Canada because it comes from a jurisdiction that's too legally dissimilar. This is garbage given the similarities between English law and Canadian law and, especially, given that Canada's law was limited to terminally ill adults like the proposed Bill. The real reason she does not want this evidence is that it would show precisely how such a Bill can be abused and how it can be expanded using anti-discrimination provisions available in English and ECHR jurisprudence.The latter, in particular, is precisely what Leadbetter has said cannot happen. That was a nonsense statement when she made it in the Commons - as a number of lawyers pointed out.
If Parliament is to do its job properly, scrutinising and understanding what has happened in Canada is exactly what it should be doing.
Leadbetter is behaving like a Paula Vennells: telling untruths to Parliament, showing contempt for Parliamentary scrutiny and those who have real concerns about what this will mean, a high-handed attitude to due process and what it is for and a determination to listen only to those who will tell her what she wants to hear.
We are watching the makings of a scandal unfold in real time.
Come on now, its hardly a matter of life and death.
Of all the things various governments have done in my lifetime that I’ve hated, I’ve never had quite the feeling in my stomach as the morning after the first reading of this bill. Slow motion train wreck.
What could possibly go wrong, some people asked? The way this is being handled should set off all sorts of alarm bells.
Rajiv Shah @RajivShah90 The Terminally Ill Adults Bill Committee has just voted 14 to 8 against calling oral evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists
I have no words 4:16 pm · 21 Jan 2025
Leadbetter is a disgrace. And so is Starmer if he really is behind this. Something as sensitive as this needs the fullest proper scrutiny not this rushed hole in the corner affair which seeks to avoid or minimise scrutiny. A PMB is the wrong route for such a law.
A summary of the ways this going wrong:
- She only produced the Bill18 days before the vote - She made at least two misleading statements to the Commons: one about judicial support and one that no equivalent law in other countries has ever been expanded (untrue - see Canada). - She has stacked the Committee with supporters and the balance in favour of the a bill is far greater than what the vote actually reflected. She has refused to have on the Committee any of the MPs with actual medical experience if they have reservations. - She has delayed for 6 weeks the call for evidence. - The meeting to decide what evidence should be called has been in private. The motion to do so was proposed at the last minute without any explanation. This means that not only was the public unable to hear the deliberations but no record of what was said will be made and kept. - She only sent round her witness list a week ago and then changed it at the last minute with the Committee only being told today. - Of these witnesses, 8 are supporters from other jurisdictions. There are no opponents. - Of the 9 lawyers, 6 are in favour of the Bill and 3 neutral. Again there are no opponents. - There are no witnesses from disability organisations, all of whom are against the Bill. - She is refusing to hear evidence from Canada because it comes from a jurisdiction that's too legally dissimilar. This is garbage given the similarities between English law and Canadian law and, especially, given that Canada's law was limited to terminally ill adults like the proposed Bill. The real reason she does not want this evidence is that it would show precisely how such a Bill can be abused and how it can be expanded using anti-discrimination provisions available in English and ECHR jurisprudence.The latter, in particular, is precisely what Leadbetter has said cannot happen. That was a nonsense statement when she made it in the Commons - as a number of lawyers pointed out.
If Parliament is to do its job properly, scrutinising and understanding what has happened in Canada is exactly what it should be doing.
Leadbetter is behaving like a Paula Vennells: telling untruths to Parliament, showing contempt for Parliamentary scrutiny and those who have real concerns about what this will mean, a high-handed attitude to due process and what it is for and a determination to listen only to those who will tell her what she wants to hear.
We are watching the makings of a scandal unfold in real time.
What could possibly go wrong, some people asked? The way this is being handled should set off all sorts of alarm bells.
Rajiv Shah @RajivShah90 The Terminally Ill Adults Bill Committee has just voted 14 to 8 against calling oral evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists
I have no words 4:16 pm · 21 Jan 2025
Leadbetter is a disgrace. And so is Starmer if he really is behind this. Something as sensitive as this needs the fullest proper scrutiny not this rushed hole in the corner affair which seeks to avoid or minimise scrutiny. A PMB is the wrong route for such a law.
A summary of the ways this going wrong:
- She only produced the Bill18 days before the vote - She made at least two misleading statements to the Commons: one about judicial support and one that no equivalent law in other countries has ever been expanded (untrue - see Canada). - She has stacked the Committee with supporters and the balance in favour of the a bill is far greater than what the vote actually reflected. She has refused to have on the Committee any of the MPs with actual medical experience if they have reservations. - She has delayed for 6 weeks the call for evidence. - The meeting to decide what evidence should be called has been in private. The motion to do so was proposed at the last minute without any explanation. This means that not only was the public unable to hear the deliberations but no record of what was said will be made and kept. - She only sent round her witness list a week ago and then changed it at the last minute with the Committee only being told today. - Of these witnesses, 8 are supporters from other jurisdictions. There are no opponents. - Of the 9 lawyers, 6 are in favour of the Bill and 3 neutral. Again there are no opponents. - There are no witnesses from disability organisations, all of whom are against the Bill. - She is refusing to hear evidence from Canada because it comes from a jurisdiction that's too legally dissimilar. This is garbage given the similarities between English law and Canadian law and, especially, given that Canada's law was limited to terminally ill adults like the proposed Bill. The real reason she does not want this evidence is that it would show precisely how such a Bill can be abused and how it can be expanded using anti-discrimination provisions available in English and ECHR jurisprudence.The latter, in particular, is precisely what Leadbetter has said cannot happen. That was a nonsense statement when she made it in the Commons - as a number of lawyers pointed out.
If Parliament is to do its job properly, scrutinising and understanding what has happened in Canada is exactly what it should be doing.
Leadbetter is behaving like a Paula Vennells: telling untruths to Parliament, showing contempt for Parliamentary scrutiny and those who have real concerns about what this will mean, a high-handed attitude to due process and what it is for and a determination to listen only to those who will tell her what she wants to hear.
We are watching the makings of a scandal unfold in real time.
Come on now, its hardly a matter of life and death.
Of all the things various governments have done in my lifetime that I’ve hated, I’ve never had quite the feeling in my stomach as the morning after the first reading of this bill. Slow motion train wreck.
It's not a government bill is it?
It's a private members bill, albeit with governmental support.
I have just realised you can sing "Nazi Elon" to the tune of "Save the Badgers", thus:
"Nazi Nazi Nazi....Nazi Nazi...NAZI ELON! Nazi Nazi...."
Nigel Farage must be thinking he dodged a bullet.
Which brings me to my new theory. The falling out between Trump and Farage is all down to Musk who, not for the first time, is walking back a crazy cash offer made while sedated.
What could possibly go wrong, some people asked? The way this is being handled should set off all sorts of alarm bells.
Rajiv Shah @RajivShah90 The Terminally Ill Adults Bill Committee has just voted 14 to 8 against calling oral evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists
I have no words 4:16 pm · 21 Jan 2025
Leadbetter is a disgrace. And so is Starmer if he really is behind this. Something as sensitive as this needs the fullest proper scrutiny not this rushed hole in the corner affair which seeks to avoid or minimise scrutiny. A PMB is the wrong route for such a law.
A summary of the ways this going wrong:
- She only produced the Bill18 days before the vote - She made at least two misleading statements to the Commons: one about judicial support and one that no equivalent law in other countries has ever been expanded (untrue - see Canada). - She has stacked the Committee with supporters and the balance in favour of the a bill is far greater than what the vote actually reflected. She has refused to have on the Committee any of the MPs with actual medical experience if they have reservations. - She has delayed for 6 weeks the call for evidence. - The meeting to decide what evidence should be called has been in private. The motion to do so was proposed at the last minute without any explanation. This means that not only was the public unable to hear the deliberations but no record of what was said will be made and kept. - She only sent round her witness list a week ago and then changed it at the last minute with the Committee only being told today. - Of these witnesses, 8 are supporters from other jurisdictions. There are no opponents. - Of the 9 lawyers, 6 are in favour of the Bill and 3 neutral. Again there are no opponents. - There are no witnesses from disability organisations, all of whom are against the Bill. - She is refusing to hear evidence from Canada because it comes from a jurisdiction that's too legally dissimilar. This is garbage given the similarities between English law and Canadian law and, especially, given that Canada's law was limited to terminally ill adults like the proposed Bill. The real reason she does not want this evidence is that it would show precisely how such a Bill can be abused and how it can be expanded using anti-discrimination provisions available in English and ECHR jurisprudence.The latter, in particular, is precisely what Leadbetter has said cannot happen. That was a nonsense statement when she made it in the Commons - as a number of lawyers pointed out.
If Parliament is to do its job properly, scrutinising and understanding what has happened in Canada is exactly what it should be doing.
Leadbetter is behaving like a Paula Vennells: telling untruths to Parliament, showing contempt for Parliamentary scrutiny and those who have real concerns about what this will mean, a high-handed attitude to due process and what it is for and a determination to listen only to those who will tell her what she wants to hear.
We are watching the makings of a scandal unfold in real time.
I am in favour of the bill but absolutely it should be done with great care and scrutiny and in public.
What could possibly go wrong, some people asked? The way this is being handled should set off all sorts of alarm bells.
Rajiv Shah @RajivShah90 The Terminally Ill Adults Bill Committee has just voted 14 to 8 against calling oral evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists
I have no words 4:16 pm · 21 Jan 2025
Leadbetter is a disgrace. And so is Starmer if he really is behind this. Something as sensitive as this needs the fullest proper scrutiny not this rushed hole in the corner affair which seeks to avoid or minimise scrutiny. A PMB is the wrong route for such a law.
A summary of the ways this going wrong:
- She only produced the Bill18 days before the vote - She made at least two misleading statements to the Commons: one about judicial support and one that no equivalent law in other countries has ever been expanded (untrue - see Canada). - She has stacked the Committee with supporters and the balance in favour of the a bill is far greater than what the vote actually reflected. She has refused to have on the Committee any of the MPs with actual medical experience if they have reservations. - She has delayed for 6 weeks the call for evidence. - The meeting to decide what evidence should be called has been in private. The motion to do so was proposed at the last minute without any explanation. This means that not only was the public unable to hear the deliberations but no record of what was said will be made and kept. - She only sent round her witness list a week ago and then changed it at the last minute with the Committee only being told today. - Of these witnesses, 8 are supporters from other jurisdictions. There are no opponents. - Of the 9 lawyers, 6 are in favour of the Bill and 3 neutral. Again there are no opponents. - There are no witnesses from disability organisations, all of whom are against the Bill. - She is refusing to hear evidence from Canada because it comes from a jurisdiction that's too legally dissimilar. This is garbage given the similarities between English law and Canadian law and, especially, given that Canada's law was limited to terminally ill adults like the proposed Bill. The real reason she does not want this evidence is that it would show precisely how such a Bill can be abused and how it can be expanded using anti-discrimination provisions available in English and ECHR jurisprudence.The latter, in particular, is precisely what Leadbetter has said cannot happen. That was a nonsense statement when she made it in the Commons - as a number of lawyers pointed out.
If Parliament is to do its job properly, scrutinising and understanding what has happened in Canada is exactly what it should be doing.
Leadbetter is behaving like a Paula Vennells: telling untruths to Parliament, showing contempt for Parliamentary scrutiny and those who have real concerns about what this will mean, a high-handed attitude to due process and what it is for and a determination to listen only to those who will tell her what she wants to hear.
We are watching the makings of a scandal unfold in real time.
Apart from the emotive subject, is this vastly different from the way any bill progresses? A shoddy first draft railroaded through committee and the Lords with the government accepting only its own amendments?
What could possibly go wrong, some people asked? The way this is being handled should set off all sorts of alarm bells.
Rajiv Shah @RajivShah90 The Terminally Ill Adults Bill Committee has just voted 14 to 8 against calling oral evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists
I have no words 4:16 pm · 21 Jan 2025
Leadbetter is a disgrace. And so is Starmer if he really is behind this. Something as sensitive as this needs the fullest proper scrutiny not this rushed hole in the corner affair which seeks to avoid or minimise scrutiny. A PMB is the wrong route for such a law.
A summary of the ways this going wrong:
- She only produced the Bill18 days before the vote - She made at least two misleading statements to the Commons: one about judicial support and one that no equivalent law in other countries has ever been expanded (untrue - see Canada). - She has stacked the Committee with supporters and the balance in favour of the a bill is far greater than what the vote actually reflected. She has refused to have on the Committee any of the MPs with actual medical experience if they have reservations. - She has delayed for 6 weeks the call for evidence. - The meeting to decide what evidence should be called has been in private. The motion to do so was proposed at the last minute without any explanation. This means that not only was the public unable to hear the deliberations but no record of what was said will be made and kept. - She only sent round her witness list a week ago and then changed it at the last minute with the Committee only being told today. - Of these witnesses, 8 are supporters from other jurisdictions. There are no opponents. - Of the 9 lawyers, 6 are in favour of the Bill and 3 neutral. Again there are no opponents. - There are no witnesses from disability organisations, all of whom are against the Bill. - She is refusing to hear evidence from Canada because it comes from a jurisdiction that's too legally dissimilar. This is garbage given the similarities between English law and Canadian law and, especially, given that Canada's law was limited to terminally ill adults like the proposed Bill. The real reason she does not want this evidence is that it would show precisely how such a Bill can be abused and how it can be expanded using anti-discrimination provisions available in English and ECHR jurisprudence.The latter, in particular, is precisely what Leadbetter has said cannot happen. That was a nonsense statement when she made it in the Commons - as a number of lawyers pointed out.
If Parliament is to do its job properly, scrutinising and understanding what has happened in Canada is exactly what it should be doing.
Leadbetter is behaving like a Paula Vennells: telling untruths to Parliament, showing contempt for Parliamentary scrutiny and those who have real concerns about what this will mean, a high-handed attitude to due process and what it is for and a determination to listen only to those who will tell her what she wants to hear.
We are watching the makings of a scandal unfold in real time.
Come on now, its hardly a matter of life and death.
It will help solve inequality, cull the people who can't pay for their own care and you get rid of the poorest and costliest. This will make gini coefficient better which starmer can claim as a win.....just being somewhat cynical but mostly I hope humourous
John Stepek @John_Stepek You know if we're going to build a few more runways, maybe it would be intellectually consistent and growth-oriented to drill for a bit of oil and gas too
It's interesting the contrast with Norway. New oil and gas drilling... But also 90% of new cars are electric.
Because they have lots of oil and gas to provide consistent electricity for them.
Norway's electricity is almost entirely renewable: 88% of power is provided by hydroelectricity.
It's interesting that Germany's decision to end nuclear power is forcing Norway to reconsider selling electricity to them because the spikes in demand push up prices for Norwegians even though they are self-sufficient.
How does that make sense? If Norway is self-sufficient and exporting to Germany, then spikes in price can only be good for Norway - they get more money for the same number of electrons.
It's not good for Norwegian consumers whose bills go up.
Why would Norwegian consumer bills go up? It would be the opposite. High prices are great if you're a country that exports electricity. The Norwegian power companies would get more money from exports, so they wouldn't need to charge domestic consumers so much.
Where did you actually see it reported that Norway is to reconsider selling electricity to Germany?
Electricity is a fungible good (ignoring transmission lists, etc).
So if you can sell for 100 to Germany or 10 to Norway you sell to Germany
Consumers always pay the marginal cost (unless they have hedged)
Yep:
And there is also the impact of some industries that are just proxies for energy: nitrogen fertilizers, aluminum smelting, and purifying silicon to name but three. If the price of energy moves in one place, then production in another jumps up to compensate.
Which is why it didn't matter how dependent or not you are on Russian gas, you got the same impact from their removal from the gas market.
Taking this to its logical conclusion, would you argue that there's no point having a national energy policy at all?
I think there's a good case for taxing negative externalities, freeing up the planning process, and letting the market decide.
With that said, there are still a few projects where the government probably needs to play a role. I think the lack of has storage in the UK (a common good problem) meant that UK generators needed to pay whatever it took to secure LNG cargoes, while countries with significant storage facilities were able to take much more of a wait and see attitude.
LNG storage, and SMR Nuclear which has massive export potential.
This SMR Nuclear?
"the failure of the much-anticipated proof case for advanced nuclear alongside the X-Energy market retreat left many questioning whether next generation nuclear could live up to its promises."
What could possibly go wrong, some people asked? The way this is being handled should set off all sorts of alarm bells.
Rajiv Shah @RajivShah90 The Terminally Ill Adults Bill Committee has just voted 14 to 8 against calling oral evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists
I have no words 4:16 pm · 21 Jan 2025
Leadbetter is a disgrace. And so is Starmer if he really is behind this. Something as sensitive as this needs the fullest proper scrutiny not this rushed hole in the corner affair which seeks to avoid or minimise scrutiny. A PMB is the wrong route for such a law.
A summary of the ways this going wrong:
- She only produced the Bill18 days before the vote - She made at least two misleading statements to the Commons: one about judicial support and one that no equivalent law in other countries has ever been expanded (untrue - see Canada). - She has stacked the Committee with supporters and the balance in favour of the a bill is far greater than what the vote actually reflected. She has refused to have on the Committee any of the MPs with actual medical experience if they have reservations. - She has delayed for 6 weeks the call for evidence. - The meeting to decide what evidence should be called has been in private. The motion to do so was proposed at the last minute without any explanation. This means that not only was the public unable to hear the deliberations but no record of what was said will be made and kept. - She only sent round her witness list a week ago and then changed it at the last minute with the Committee only being told today. - Of these witnesses, 8 are supporters from other jurisdictions. There are no opponents. - Of the 9 lawyers, 6 are in favour of the Bill and 3 neutral. Again there are no opponents. - There are no witnesses from disability organisations, all of whom are against the Bill. - She is refusing to hear evidence from Canada because it comes from a jurisdiction that's too legally dissimilar. This is garbage given the similarities between English law and Canadian law and, especially, given that Canada's law was limited to terminally ill adults like the proposed Bill. The real reason she does not want this evidence is that it would show precisely how such a Bill can be abused and how it can be expanded using anti-discrimination provisions available in English and ECHR jurisprudence.The latter, in particular, is precisely what Leadbetter has said cannot happen. That was a nonsense statement when she made it in the Commons - as a number of lawyers pointed out.
If Parliament is to do its job properly, scrutinising and understanding what has happened in Canada is exactly what it should be doing.
Leadbetter is behaving like a Paula Vennells: telling untruths to Parliament, showing contempt for Parliamentary scrutiny and those who have real concerns about what this will mean, a high-handed attitude to due process and what it is for and a determination to listen only to those who will tell her what she wants to hear.
We are watching the makings of a scandal unfold in real time.
I am in favour of the bill but absolutely it should be done with great care and scrutiny and in public.
I would have voted, with reservations, in favour at second reading, in the hope that its faults could have been rectified in committee.
That seems highly unlikely now and I'd be voting against at Report and Third Reading.
Not that my opinion matters - but those of MPs who felt similarly at Second Reading does. And given that the vote was only 330-275, that could make its progress very much in doubt.
Unlike some legislation, where a bad Bill is better than no Bill because of the consequences of nothing being passed, this is something where if it's not right, parliament should reject it, rethink, and come back another time.
Comments
Congratulations to the climate campaigners.
There is no more important challenge than the climate emergency. That is why I voted against Heathrow expansion.
UK, USA, China.
The American company is about to drop out, pausing development having failed to receive an order, so either the UK government gets behind RR or the whole potential worldwide market goes to China.
A sensible UK government would be able to structure a deal where the risk of a failure to deliver lies with the company rather than with the government, but it was many years since I last understood risk management in UK government contracts.
Michael Crick thinks there’s a big story in the Tulip Siddiq saga.
Lol.
Payment due when reactors delivered, with a specified power output, passing safety inspections etc. Contract penalties for under performance.
The UK's Leader of the opposition and Leader of the Labour Party Sir Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) has paid a courtesy call to HPM Sheikh Hasina today at the Hotel Claridge in London today (17th September).
In the long term the best way to combat genocide famine and war would be to tackle climate change.
I’m finding the idea of hundreds of concentration camps full of refugees scattered across the EU by 2060 a difficult idea to discount.
https://www.clpd.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Keir-Starmers-10-Pledges.pdf
Good evening, everybody.
https://www.twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1881309176812765562/photo/1
Which will be quite sporting - it will involve flying upside down in the upper Martian atmosphere. Using negative lift, to stay inside the atmosphere.
Adele - Set Fire to the Rain
Alicia Keys - This Girl is on Fire
Maybe some cover bands could add in Disco Inferno and Great Balls of Fire.
"the failure of the much-anticipated proof case for advanced nuclear alongside the X-Energy market retreat left many questioning whether next generation nuclear could live up to its promises."
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/cancelled-nuscale-contract-weighs-heavy-new-nuclear-2024-01-10/
Is he finally going to say where he's putting this bridge the American people bought?
Much of the timing will depend on how quickly they can successfully demo orbital refuelling, last week’s little disassembly doesn’t help but isn’t fatal. It will be a hard wake-up for the “Musk is a baby / Nazi” types here and elsewhere when it comes to fruition.
A summary of the ways this going wrong:
- She only produced the Bill18 days before the vote
- She made at least two misleading statements to the Commons: one about judicial support and one that no equivalent law in other countries has ever been expanded (untrue - see Canada).
- She has stacked the Committee with supporters and the balance in favour of the a bill is far greater than what the vote actually reflected. She has refused to have on the Committee any of the MPs with actual medical experience if they have reservations.
- She has delayed for 6 weeks the call for evidence.
- The meeting to decide what evidence should be called has been in private. The motion to do so was proposed at the last minute without any explanation. This means that not only was the public unable to hear the deliberations but no record of what was said will be made and kept.
- She only sent round her witness list a week ago and then changed it at the last minute with the Committee only being told today.
- Of these witnesses, 8 are supporters from other jurisdictions. There are no opponents.
- Of the 9 lawyers, 6 are in favour of the Bill and 3 neutral. Again there are no opponents.
- There are no witnesses from disability organisations, all of whom are against the Bill.
- She is refusing to hear evidence from Canada because it comes from a jurisdiction that's too legally dissimilar. This is garbage given the similarities between English law and Canadian law and, especially, given that Canada's law was limited to terminally ill adults like the proposed Bill. The real reason she does not want this evidence is that it would show precisely how such a Bill can be abused and how it can be expanded using anti-discrimination provisions available in English and ECHR jurisprudence.The latter, in particular, is precisely what Leadbetter has said cannot happen. That was a nonsense statement when she made it in the Commons - as a number of lawyers pointed out.
If Parliament is to do its job properly, scrutinising and understanding what has happened in Canada is exactly what it should be doing.
Leadbetter is behaving like a Paula Vennells: telling untruths to Parliament, showing contempt for Parliamentary scrutiny and those who have real concerns about what this will mean, a high-handed attitude to due process and what it is for and a determination to listen only to those who will tell her what she wants to hear.
We are watching the makings of a scandal unfold in real time.
So it won’t be that
The biggest signifier appears to be supporting the Reform party (a majority by some way).
"Nazi Nazi Nazi....Nazi Nazi...NAZI ELON! Nazi Nazi...."
It's a private members bill, albeit with governmental support.
NEW THREAD
Which brings me to my new theory. The falling out between Trump and Farage is all down to Musk who, not for the first time, is walking back a crazy cash offer made while sedated.
When democracy turns into gerontocracy, is it any surprise that the young lose faith in it?
(*or 150m km away)
That seems highly unlikely now and I'd be voting against at Report and Third Reading.
Not that my opinion matters - but those of MPs who felt similarly at Second Reading does. And given that the vote was only 330-275, that could make its progress very much in doubt.
Unlike some legislation, where a bad Bill is better than no Bill because of the consequences of nothing being passed, this is something where if it's not right, parliament should reject it, rethink, and come back another time.