I will say this for Starmer if talking, holding scores of conferences and meetings, and creating quangos is the recipe for success he will gain another landslide
Unfortunately for him, one can talk as much as one wants but the public have to see results and so far there is a blank page
My photo of the day, to explain why the Daily Telegraph Dad's Army are so frit about people on bicycles. (Why is this Dad's, not Dads' ?)
The Wehrmacht, counter-attacking at Arnhem, in 1944:
Arnhem, Bicycle Squadron on the Move Scherl Bilderdienst Westen, September 1944, Anglo-American encirclement plan at Arnhem failed. The first enemy gliders had barely landed when the German intervention reserves began to move. A bicycle squadron on the march to the landing site. SS-PK Pospesch
ADN Image Archive, World War II 1939-45, Battle of Arnhem (Holland), September 17-27, 1944. The Allied airborne operation near Arnhem, which began on September 17, 1944, was intended to secure the Rhine, Meuse, and Waal crossings. After suffering heavy losses, the landed troops were withdrawn at the end of September. This bicycle squadron was one of the quickly assembled German forces deployed against the recently landed Allied paratroopers. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-S73823,_Arnheim,_Radfahrschwadron_im_Anmarsch.jpg
Serious point though - how does the solar power that's fed in to the grid overnight having been stored at generation site batteries get counted?
There's a section for stored energy generation. We don't have a lot of battery storage though. Solar is still, despite what Robert might say, not viable in the UK. We just need to dump £20bn into the RR modular nuclear reactors and get them started up with a manufacturing pilot line and the first few reactors built and running by 2030. If we approve it and get RR started today we might make it but the government moves like molasses and our tech leadership is slipping away without that big order and backing for RR from the UK.
As a side note I was speaking to an energy investor here in Florence today and he confirmed what I already suspected that RR and other UK companies struggle to get overseas money because they don't have the UK government vote of confidence. It's difficult to get foreign governments to buy something that its own one seems uninterested in and he was saying that's the resistance RR are running into when they make their sales pitch "if it's as good as you say then why is your own government not already placing an order for 10 of these and looking at an American solution instead?" is the question they can't answer.
Are we actually looking at an American solution? Wtf?
Yes, and the assessment has been pushed out to 2028 iirc, it's a bit of a joke really for a country that has hugely rising energy demand with AI being our biggest growth industry and companies looking for cheap, stable power supply which neither wind nor solar can provide.
There are a few things which ought to be JFDI. If we have any interest in SMRs, then this is one of them.
If we're going to buy SMRs anyway, then this represents far better value than, for example, the carbon capture funding, which serves only to make power more expensive. There is a world market (and it had obvious benefits for eg naval reactor engineering) which we could have a decent shot at.
Serious point though - how does the solar power that's fed in to the grid overnight having been stored at generation site batteries get counted?
There's a section for stored energy generation. We don't have a lot of battery storage though. Solar is still, despite what Robert might say, not viable in the UK. We just need to dump £20bn into the RR modular nuclear reactors and get them started up with a manufacturing pilot line and the first few reactors built and running by 2030. If we approve it and get RR started today we might make it but the government moves like molasses and our tech leadership is slipping away without that big order and backing for RR from the UK.
As a side note I was speaking to an energy investor here in Florence today and he confirmed what I already suspected that RR and other UK companies struggle to get overseas money because they don't have the UK government vote of confidence. It's difficult to get foreign governments to buy something that its own one seems uninterested in and he was saying that's the resistance RR are running into when they make their sales pitch "if it's as good as you say then why is your own government not already placing an order for 10 of these and looking at an American solution instead?" is the question they can't answer.
Are we actually looking at an American solution? Wtf?
We should absolutely look at an American solution as part of a thorough assessment
The issue is that the treasury scoring method puts zero weight on the strategic value of domestic capabilities
Which is frankly insane.
How do they weight the potential economic value of kickstarting a domestic manufacturer ? Or is that also ignored ?
The treasury model simply doesn't work for a something from nothing industry. If it was up to the treasury they would have blocked investment tax rebates for AI in the 00s and 10s because the ROI was hugely negative for the government but somehow Osborne resisted them and told the bean counters to STFU.
The treasury is, IMO, one of the most malign departments and absolutely opposed to economic growth. If we sacked all of them tomorrow, scrapped the models and started from scratch we'd see a huge change within a year.
Scrapping it would be daft, but it does seem to require radical reform.
Just noting FPT that Lord Sumption has apparently come out in favour of Letby being perhaps innocent, though the report in the Mail is extremely thin and adds nothing of substance to the story, though Sumption is one of the weightiest figure in the law.
FWIW, though I think the case against Letby is sound, I think there is going to be enough for the CCRC to refer the verdicts back to the Court of Appeal.
That's the easy bit. There is a very recent example of how the CA deals with CCRC referrals, from a case where the evidence is very thin indeed and where there was apparent grounds that a 'cell confession' (a notorious field) had been retracted by the unreliable criminal alleging it had been made.
The CA carved through it with an interesting mix of scalpel and bulldozer, upholding the conviction. Not for the faint hearted it is here:
Compared with this the case against Letby is strong.
I have no idea on the Letby case (guilt is deterministic not statistical and statistical evidence should not be sufficient for a guilty verdict) but "Supreme Judge has an reckon because some of the people he knows has a reckon" has exactly the same status as "bloke down the pub said so". Sumption is far too keen on talking to the press.
The evidence against Letby -- which was presented over 26 weeks, which shows how much there was and how much it was scrutinised -- was not purely statistical.
I wasn't at the trial but SFAICS no expert statistical evidence was called; it didn't enter into the trial (correct me if I am wrong).
It is not statistical evidence to say that occurrences XYZABCDEFG occurred when person A was present on each occasion. It is factual evidence.
Statistical evidence is when a DNA sample is found at location X, and an expert says there is a 1 in Y chance of it belonging/not belonging to person Z.
Serious point though - how does the solar power that's fed in to the grid overnight having been stored at generation site batteries get counted?
There's a section for stored energy generation. We don't have a lot of battery storage though. Solar is still, despite what Robert might say, not viable in the UK. We just need to dump £20bn into the RR modular nuclear reactors and get them started up with a manufacturing pilot line and the first few reactors built and running by 2030. If we approve it and get RR started today we might make it but the government moves like molasses and our tech leadership is slipping away without that big order and backing for RR from the UK.
As a side note I was speaking to an energy investor here in Florence today and he confirmed what I already suspected that RR and other UK companies struggle to get overseas money because they don't have the UK government vote of confidence. It's difficult to get foreign governments to buy something that its own one seems uninterested in and he was saying that's the resistance RR are running into when they make their sales pitch "if it's as good as you say then why is your own government not already placing an order for 10 of these and looking at an American solution instead?" is the question they can't answer.
Are we actually looking at an American solution? Wtf?
Yes, and the assessment has been pushed out to 2028 iirc, it's a bit of a joke really for a country that has hugely rising energy demand with AI being our biggest growth industry and companies looking for cheap, stable power supply which neither wind nor solar can provide.
Whilst this March has been amazing for solar generation, it's not the norm. I think Robert forgets just how little sunlight we get some winters (It's not just the shortened day hours but the massive low pressure cloud blocks, and even high pressure anticyclonic gloom.
Yup the number of days we'd have that gave us enough power to use for the whole day during sunlight hours and have excess generation to fill up a battery is extremely low. For probably 90/100 days in the summer the battery wouldn't be able to charge to 100% due to daytime power use and cloudy conditions causing lower than peak production.
Solar is simply not viable in an overcast country, we should be pumping all of our money into SMRs and fusion power research we can't afford for China to beat us to it.
I'd be inclined to look at that from the other end, and suggest that that is an indicator of the utility of reducing usage.
One of the real problems the USA has is that they are massively inefficient in their use of energy - which means that they need to build 2-3x as much energy infrastructure as peer economies.
But I oppose them. They are unnecessary and deeply anti-democratic - there is already a mechanism called "elections" which limits a politician's term as head of state. And if the American people are idiotic enough to want Trump for another term, they should be allowed that option.
It is comforting to think that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for this particular incumbent to run again though.
While I broadly agree with you (that term limits are anti-democratic), I think the argument for them is that the presidency is such a powerful and honoured position, that extensive time in the role also has an anti-democratic effect and presidential term limits serve as another check or balance. Now the Supreme Court has given the president almost unlimited power, that argument is stronger.
That was precisely why they were brought in, by a Republican Party which saw Roosevelt as accreting executive power which threatened the constitutional balance. Trump has taken executive power well beyond anything Roosevelt tried. Even Roosevelt's threat to expand the Supreme Court (which came to nothing in the end) is something the GOP has now echoed,
It has been an issue since the Constitution was first drafted. Roosevelt's fourth term brought it to a head.
Just noting FPT that Lord Sumption has apparently come out in favour of Letby being perhaps innocent, though the report in the Mail is extremely thin and adds nothing of substance to the story, though Sumption is one of the weightiest figure in the law.
FWIW, though I think the case against Letby is sound, I think there is going to be enough for the CCRC to refer the verdicts back to the Court of Appeal.
That's the easy bit. There is a very recent example of how the CA deals with CCRC referrals, from a case where the evidence is very thin indeed and where there was apparent grounds that a 'cell confession' (a notorious field) had been retracted by the unreliable criminal alleging it had been made.
The CA carved through it with an interesting mix of scalpel and bulldozer, upholding the conviction. Not for the faint hearted it is here:
Compared with this the case against Letby is strong.
I have no idea on the Letby case (guilt is deterministic not statistical and statistical evidence should not be sufficient for a guilty verdict) but "Supreme Judge has an reckon because some of the people he knows has a reckon" has exactly the same status as "bloke down the pub said so". Sumption is far too keen on talking to the press.
The evidence against Letby -- which was presented over 26 weeks, which shows how much there was and how much it was scrutinised -- was not purely statistical.
I wasn't at the trial but SFAICS no expert statistical evidence was called; it didn't enter into the trial (correct me if I am wrong).
It is not statistical evidence to say that occurrences XYZABCDEFG occurred when person A was present on each occasion. It is factual evidence.
Statistical evidence is when a DNA sample is found at location X, and an expert says there is a 1 in Y chance of it belonging/not belonging to person Z.
Thats playing fast and loose with how the evidence was used. If you say "XYZABCDEFG occurred when person A" - how likely was that? Then you are using the public's perception of statistics.
But I oppose them. They are unnecessary and deeply anti-democratic - there is already a mechanism called "elections" which limits a politician's term as head of state. And if the American people are idiotic enough to want Trump for another term, they should be allowed that option.
It is comforting to think that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for this particular incumbent to run again though.
While I broadly agree with you (that term limits are anti-democratic), I think the argument for them is that the presidency is such a powerful and honoured position, that extensive time in the role also has an anti-democratic effect and presidential term limits serve as another check or balance. Now the Supreme Court has given the president almost unlimited power, that argument is stronger.
That was precisely why they were brought in, by a Republican Party which saw Roosevelt as accreting executive power which threatened the constitutional balance. Trump has taken executive power well beyond anything Roosevelt tried. Even Roosevelt's threat to expand the Supreme Court (which came to nothing in the end) is something the GOP has now echoed,
It has been an issue since the Constitution was first drafted. Roosevelt's fourth term brought it to a head.
If the electorate didn't like the idea of a president serving a fourth term, they could have voted against it by electing someone else.
I will say this for Starmer if talking, holding scores of conferences and meetings, and creating quangos is the recipe for success he will gain another landslide
Unfortunately for him, one can talk as much as one wants but the public have to see results and so far there is a blank page
Oddly enough, talking and meeting is about all he can do. He can empower Ministers, co-ordinate Government with other groups and get people in a room to discuss issues but he can no more pick up a spade and start digging than you or I.
We think the Prime Minister has a lot of power and they do have the power to destroy us all (I suppose) but in truth they can only try to make things happen, they can't actually make it happen.
That's the truth of both democracy and dictatorship - the people at the top can cajole and persuade but it's the people at the bottom who do the actual work.
The treasury model simply doesn't work for a something from nothing industry. If it was up to the treasury they would have blocked investment tax rebates for AI in the 00s and 10s because the ROI was hugely negative for the government but somehow Osborne resisted them and told the bean counters to STFU.
The treasury is, IMO, one of the most malign departments and absolutely opposed to economic growth. If we sacked all of them tomorrow, scrapped the models and started from scratch we'd see a huge change within a year.
I'm no expert but the answers from the Treasury always seem to be do more of the same thing in the same places, not do new things in new places. They might even make sense for a while, until someone comes along and invents say the car or the computer, and what you do well is now headed for the scrapheap.
Basically they are incredibly risk averse, which is a stance that is ultimately doomed to fail.
Serious point though - how does the solar power that's fed in to the grid overnight having been stored at generation site batteries get counted?
There's a section for stored energy generation. We don't have a lot of battery storage though. Solar is still, despite what Robert might say, not viable in the UK. We just need to dump £20bn into the RR modular nuclear reactors and get them started up with a manufacturing pilot line and the first few reactors built and running by 2030. If we approve it and get RR started today we might make it but the government moves like molasses and our tech leadership is slipping away without that big order and backing for RR from the UK.
As a side note I was speaking to an energy investor here in Florence today and he confirmed what I already suspected that RR and other UK companies struggle to get overseas money because they don't have the UK government vote of confidence. It's difficult to get foreign governments to buy something that its own one seems uninterested in and he was saying that's the resistance RR are running into when they make their sales pitch "if it's as good as you say then why is your own government not already placing an order for 10 of these and looking at an American solution instead?" is the question they can't answer.
Are we actually looking at an American solution? Wtf?
Yes, and the assessment has been pushed out to 2028 iirc, it's a bit of a joke really for a country that has hugely rising energy demand with AI being our biggest growth industry and companies looking for cheap, stable power supply which neither wind nor solar can provide.
There are a few things which ought to be JFDI. If we have any interest in SMRs, then this is one of them.
If we're going to buy SMRs anyway, then this represents far better value than, for example, the carbon capture funding, which serves only to make power more expensive. There is a world market (and it had obvious benefits for eg naval reactor engineering) which we could have a decent shot at.
It’s not we have a decent shot at - it’s something we know we can do because it’s something Rolls Royce already build for our nukes and something that is essential. I’m at a loss as to why we haven’t found £5bn to kick to things off
I've read various pieces and comments across the tinterweb suggesting that now is the time to rejoin the EU.
Why? The EU project is about to substantially evolve again. Mutual defence is now going to be just as important as anything else, which means countries outside the EU such as UK and Norway being heavily involved.
We will be part of the post-EU framework, without question.
It's not primarily defence. The EU is an economic superpower which will be enhanced with the the re-inclusion of the UK and maybe Norway. If the EU is undergoing the change you're talking about there is no better time to get back back in. This time including Schengen and the Euro.
Not the half in half out -part American part European-that led to Farage and his wreckers last time. This time with Trump we wouldn't have a choice but to enter full on.
You seem to think we can suddenly decide to re-join when no main stream political party is anywhere near proposing it, nor is there a mandate for such a change, so it is a pipedream to expect the UK rejoining the EU in the lifetime of this parliament
However, an evolving movement towards a new defence and trading agreement much wider than the narrow EU membership is now a real opportunity
Is it ? Politics and international relations are changing so rapidly that it's far from an impossibility. While it looks extremely unlikely today, it's quite possible to conceive of circumstances which change that.
I'd agree evolution is more likely, but watch this space.
But I oppose them. They are unnecessary and deeply anti-democratic - there is already a mechanism called "elections" which limits a politician's term as head of state. And if the American people are idiotic enough to want Trump for another term, they should be allowed that option.
It is comforting to think that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for this particular incumbent to run again though.
While I broadly agree with you (that term limits are anti-democratic), I think the argument for them is that the presidency is such a powerful and honoured position, that extensive time in the role also has an anti-democratic effect and presidential term limits serve as another check or balance. Now the Supreme Court has given the president almost unlimited power, that argument is stronger.
That was precisely why they were brought in, by a Republican Party which saw Roosevelt as accreting executive power which threatened the constitutional balance. Trump has taken executive power well beyond anything Roosevelt tried. Even Roosevelt's threat to expand the Supreme Court (which came to nothing in the end) is something the GOP has now echoed,
It has been an issue since the Constitution was first drafted. Roosevelt's fourth term brought it to a head.
If the electorate didn't like the idea of a president serving a fourth term, they could have voted against it by electing someone else.
They could. But as has been noted elsewhere, a liberal democracy is about more than just the tyranny of the majority. And in this case, a supermajority voted for the amendment.
This might be controversial but I don't find Trump's desire to run for a third term particularly outrageous. The twenty second amendment is pretty new in constitutional terms and was arguably only introduced because of Republican anger at FDR. What would be outrageous is if Trump achieved this by just ignoring the constitution or pressuring the Supreme Court to set the amendment aside.
Yes, but that's the point. The proper way for Trump to seek a third term would be to amend the US constitution to repeal the 22nd Amendment - but that's difficult to do unless he can manipulate Congress so as to achieve a two-thirds majority (the states might be easier - there is an exploitable loophole there).
He won't though. His style, both in business and politics, is to push ahead irrespective of the law and challenge others to come against him. And given that there is sufficient wriggle room in the constitution under the 25th Amendment for the Electoral College to 'elect' a president who doesn't qualify, there's certainly scope for the SCOTUS to rule that states should not prevent such candidates from being denied access to the ballot on those grounds.
She'd better get elected as President so she can give herself a pardon - isn't that the way things are done these days?
I was interested to see that the French President's power of pardon is unfettered, like the USA Presidential one.
Yet it has not (afaics) become a feature of a routinely corrupt political process - though stats seem hard to come by. Though there have been very seriously corrupt senior politicians in France in recent years. And there are weird features such as dangerous drivers being let off by Presidential Pardon after an election; I'm not sure if this still happens - the link below is 2007.
Surely Vance would do all he can to prevent Trump running again?
The prospect of his being able to run again is a useful motivating factor to get him to do what might be necessary to fix the next election. That's in Vance's interest.
My photo of the day, to explain why the Daily Telegraph Dad's Army are so frit about people on bicycles. (Why is this Dad's, not Dads' ?)
The Wehrmacht, counter-attacking at Arnhem, in 1944:
Arnhem, Bicycle Squadron on the Move Scherl Bilderdienst Westen, September 1944, Anglo-American encirclement plan at Arnhem failed. The first enemy gliders had barely landed when the German intervention reserves began to move. A bicycle squadron on the march to the landing site. SS-PK Pospesch
ADN Image Archive, World War II 1939-45, Battle of Arnhem (Holland), September 17-27, 1944. The Allied airborne operation near Arnhem, which began on September 17, 1944, was intended to secure the Rhine, Meuse, and Waal crossings. After suffering heavy losses, the landed troops were withdrawn at the end of September. This bicycle squadron was one of the quickly assembled German forces deployed against the recently landed Allied paratroopers. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-S73823,_Arnheim,_Radfahrschwadron_im_Anmarsch.jpg
They are not disguised as nuns so not one of the crack units.
But I oppose them. They are unnecessary and deeply anti-democratic - there is already a mechanism called "elections" which limits a politician's term as head of state. And if the American people are idiotic enough to want Trump for another term, they should be allowed that option.
It is comforting to think that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for this particular incumbent to run again though.
While I broadly agree with you (that term limits are anti-democratic), I think the argument for them is that the presidency is such a powerful and honoured position, that extensive time in the role also has an anti-democratic effect and presidential term limits serve as another check or balance. Now the Supreme Court has given the president almost unlimited power, that argument is stronger.
I think Term Limits are simply one way to mitigate a known issue with democratic systems; it's a matter of practicality and trade-offs.
I don't see that as anti-democratic, because that depends on postulating a perfect system, which we know does not exist.
We don't want to be doing the political equivalent of trying to invent a perpetual motion machine.
I think the other point to note here is that while systems both with and without term limits can be fine and functioning democracies, it's not unreasonable to be dubious when somebody comes along in a system with term limits and suggests "we should get rid of this so that I personally can stay in power for longer" -- we can reasonably assume they're not making the argument from a disinterested position of trying to improve the system.
Serious point though - how does the solar power that's fed in to the grid overnight having been stored at generation site batteries get counted?
There's a section for stored energy generation. We don't have a lot of battery storage though. Solar is still, despite what Robert might say, not viable in the UK. We just need to dump £20bn into the RR modular nuclear reactors and get them started up with a manufacturing pilot line and the first few reactors built and running by 2030. If we approve it and get RR started today we might make it but the government moves like molasses and our tech leadership is slipping away without that big order and backing for RR from the UK.
As a side note I was speaking to an energy investor here in Florence today and he confirmed what I already suspected that RR and other UK companies struggle to get overseas money because they don't have the UK government vote of confidence. It's difficult to get foreign governments to buy something that its own one seems uninterested in and he was saying that's the resistance RR are running into when they make their sales pitch "if it's as good as you say then why is your own government not already placing an order for 10 of these and looking at an American solution instead?" is the question they can't answer.
Are we actually looking at an American solution? Wtf?
Yes, and the assessment has been pushed out to 2028 iirc, it's a bit of a joke really for a country that has hugely rising energy demand with AI being our biggest growth industry and companies looking for cheap, stable power supply which neither wind nor solar can provide.
Whilst this March has been amazing for solar generation, it's not the norm. I think Robert forgets just how little sunlight we get some winters (It's not just the shortened day hours but the massive low pressure cloud blocks, and even high pressure anticyclonic gloom.
Yup the number of days we'd have that gave us enough power to use for the whole day during sunlight hours and have excess generation to fill up a battery is extremely low. For probably 90/100 days in the summer the battery wouldn't be able to charge to 100% due to daytime power use and cloudy conditions causing lower than peak production.
Solar is simply not viable in an overcast country, we should be pumping all of our money into SMRs and fusion power research we can't afford for China to beat us to it.
That would be suicidal. Fusion power remains a pipe dream, and the economic argument for SMRs is tenuous at best. What we should be doing is putting our main efforts into optimising the technologies that have actually been shown to work - wind, solar, hydro, conventional nuclear - by investing in storage and demand management. That's not to say we shouldn't be putting some resources into researching alternatives, but it would be reckless in the extreme to bet the house on fusion and SMRs.
But I oppose them. They are unnecessary and deeply anti-democratic - there is already a mechanism called "elections" which limits a politician's term as head of state. And if the American people are idiotic enough to want Trump for another term, they should be allowed that option.
It is comforting to think that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for this particular incumbent to run again though.
While I broadly agree with you (that term limits are anti-democratic), I think the argument for them is that the presidency is such a powerful and honoured position, that extensive time in the role also has an anti-democratic effect and presidential term limits serve as another check or balance. Now the Supreme Court has given the president almost unlimited power, that argument is stronger.
That was precisely why they were brought in, by a Republican Party which saw Roosevelt as accreting executive power which threatened the constitutional balance. Trump has taken executive power well beyond anything Roosevelt tried. Even Roosevelt's threat to expand the Supreme Court (which came to nothing in the end) is something the GOP has now echoed,
It has been an issue since the Constitution was first drafted. Roosevelt's fourth term brought it to a head.
Its been Dems who have been advocating increasing the size of SCOTUS and also ending the senate filibuster.
That they now think that things are different doesn't excuse them from having played dangerous political games.
Serious point though - how does the solar power that's fed in to the grid overnight having been stored at generation site batteries get counted?
There's a section for stored energy generation. We don't have a lot of battery storage though. Solar is still, despite what Robert might say, not viable in the UK. We just need to dump £20bn into the RR modular nuclear reactors and get them started up with a manufacturing pilot line and the first few reactors built and running by 2030. If we approve it and get RR started today we might make it but the government moves like molasses and our tech leadership is slipping away without that big order and backing for RR from the UK.
As a side note I was speaking to an energy investor here in Florence today and he confirmed what I already suspected that RR and other UK companies struggle to get overseas money because they don't have the UK government vote of confidence. It's difficult to get foreign governments to buy something that its own one seems uninterested in and he was saying that's the resistance RR are running into when they make their sales pitch "if it's as good as you say then why is your own government not already placing an order for 10 of these and looking at an American solution instead?" is the question they can't answer.
Are we actually looking at an American solution? Wtf?
Yes, and the assessment has been pushed out to 2028 iirc, it's a bit of a joke really for a country that has hugely rising energy demand with AI being our biggest growth industry and companies looking for cheap, stable power supply which neither wind nor solar can provide.
Whilst this March has been amazing for solar generation, it's not the norm. I think Robert forgets just how little sunlight we get some winters (It's not just the shortened day hours but the massive low pressure cloud blocks, and even high pressure anticyclonic gloom.
Yup the number of days we'd have that gave us enough power to use for the whole day during sunlight hours and have excess generation to fill up a battery is extremely low. For probably 90/100 days in the summer the battery wouldn't be able to charge to 100% due to daytime power use and cloudy conditions causing lower than peak production.
Solar is simply not viable in an overcast country, we should be pumping all of our money into SMRs and fusion power research we can't afford for China to beat us to it.
Solar is viable. The payback period is short and the ROI superb. No one pretends that it solves intermittency (either day-to-day or over the seasons), yet for some reason it gets dismissed as part of the solution because it won't provide 100% of our electricity 100% of the time.
It provides extremely cheap electricity during some parts of the year and the day, reducing our overall reliance on gas - that's a good thing. As we depend more on AC during hotter summers, it will become better matched to demand.
Massive excess supply during sunny days (and overnight for wind power) will stimulate new industries that can take advantage. I've no idea what those will be -- aluminium? steel? - but but economic history tells us the private enterprise will find a way.
My photo of the day, to explain why the Daily Telegraph Dad's Army are so frit about people on bicycles. (Why is this Dad's, not Dads' ?)
The Wehrmacht, counter-attacking at Arnhem, in 1944:
Arnhem, Bicycle Squadron on the Move Scherl Bilderdienst Westen, September 1944, Anglo-American encirclement plan at Arnhem failed. The first enemy gliders had barely landed when the German intervention reserves began to move. A bicycle squadron on the march to the landing site. SS-PK Pospesch
ADN Image Archive, World War II 1939-45, Battle of Arnhem (Holland), September 17-27, 1944. The Allied airborne operation near Arnhem, which began on September 17, 1944, was intended to secure the Rhine, Meuse, and Waal crossings. After suffering heavy losses, the landed troops were withdrawn at the end of September. This bicycle squadron was one of the quickly assembled German forces deployed against the recently landed Allied paratroopers. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-S73823,_Arnheim,_Radfahrschwadron_im_Anmarsch.jpg
They are not disguised as nuns so not one of the crack units.
Ah yes but no photo will exist of the disguised as nuns crack units, as who would be taking photos of nuns on bicycles?
I will say this for Starmer if talking, holding scores of conferences and meetings, and creating quangos is the recipe for success he will gain another landslide
Unfortunately for him, one can talk as much as one wants but the public have to see results and so far there is a blank page
Not quite a blank space.
"The PM revealed in his speech today that the UK government have returned 24,000 people with "no right to be here" since last year's General Election. He claimed it would have taken the Tories' failed Rwanda scheme "80 years to achieve" to achieve the same results."
Serious point though - how does the solar power that's fed in to the grid overnight having been stored at generation site batteries get counted?
There's a section for stored energy generation. We don't have a lot of battery storage though. Solar is still, despite what Robert might say, not viable in the UK. We just need to dump £20bn into the RR modular nuclear reactors and get them started up with a manufacturing pilot line and the first few reactors built and running by 2030. If we approve it and get RR started today we might make it but the government moves like molasses and our tech leadership is slipping away without that big order and backing for RR from the UK.
As a side note I was speaking to an energy investor here in Florence today and he confirmed what I already suspected that RR and other UK companies struggle to get overseas money because they don't have the UK government vote of confidence. It's difficult to get foreign governments to buy something that its own one seems uninterested in and he was saying that's the resistance RR are running into when they make their sales pitch "if it's as good as you say then why is your own government not already placing an order for 10 of these and looking at an American solution instead?" is the question they can't answer.
Are we actually looking at an American solution? Wtf?
We should absolutely look at an American solution as part of a thorough assessment
The issue is that the treasury scoring method puts zero weight on the strategic value of domestic capabilities
Which is frankly insane.
How do they weight the potential economic value of kickstarting a domestic manufacturer ? Or is that also ignored ?
The treasury model simply doesn't work for a something from nothing industry. If it was up to the treasury they would have blocked investment tax rebates for AI in the 00s and 10s because the ROI was hugely negative for the government but somehow Osborne resisted them and told the bean counters to STFU.
The treasury is, IMO, one of the most malign departments and absolutely opposed to economic growth. If we sacked all of them tomorrow, scrapped the models and started from scratch we'd see a huge change within a year.
Scrapping it would be daft, but it does seem to require radical reform.
Would it be that daft? It hasn't suddenly gone rogue like the Home Office. The Treasury has been a thoroughly pernicious source of economic failure and instability for at least 4 decades, and probably many times that. In the Thatcher era under Lawson they were running an alternative monetary policy against MT's wishes that eventually resulted in entry to the ERM and we know what followed. There is now the truism in politics that 'The Prime Minister cannot sack the Chancellor and survive' I am sorry but that's not acceptable. If the COTE is not performing in line with the PM's expectations they should be dismissed or found a more appropriate Cabinet position. I cannot see what is worth saving about the current set up.
An issue with a Vance/Trump ticket is that Vance is incapable of not being unpleasant.
Didn't do Trump much harm. Though I accept that he has mysterious powers over the g spots of a large number of US voters.
Yeah. I get you. But that's kinda my point. He doesn't have what Trump has. Mysterious as that may be to non-Americans.
Vance still seems to be deciding what his schtick is, intellectual(sic) speaker of uncomfortable truths or down and dirty bar brawler, neither of which may be convincing or attractive to the punter. For sure being the entertaining boor won't work for him like it does Trump.
I will say this for Starmer if talking, holding scores of conferences and meetings, and creating quangos is the recipe for success he will gain another landslide
Unfortunately for him, one can talk as much as one wants but the public have to see results and so far there is a blank page
Not quite a blank space.
"The PM revealed in his speech today that the UK government have returned 24,000 people with "no right to be here" since last year's General Election. He claimed it would have taken the Tories' failed Rwanda scheme "80 years to achieve" to achieve the same results."
Serious point though - how does the solar power that's fed in to the grid overnight having been stored at generation site batteries get counted?
There's a section for stored energy generation. We don't have a lot of battery storage though. Solar is still, despite what Robert might say, not viable in the UK. We just need to dump £20bn into the RR modular nuclear reactors and get them started up with a manufacturing pilot line and the first few reactors built and running by 2030. If we approve it and get RR started today we might make it but the government moves like molasses and our tech leadership is slipping away without that big order and backing for RR from the UK.
As a side note I was speaking to an energy investor here in Florence today and he confirmed what I already suspected that RR and other UK companies struggle to get overseas money because they don't have the UK government vote of confidence. It's difficult to get foreign governments to buy something that its own one seems uninterested in and he was saying that's the resistance RR are running into when they make their sales pitch "if it's as good as you say then why is your own government not already placing an order for 10 of these and looking at an American solution instead?" is the question they can't answer.
Are we actually looking at an American solution? Wtf?
Yes, and the assessment has been pushed out to 2028 iirc, it's a bit of a joke really for a country that has hugely rising energy demand with AI being our biggest growth industry and companies looking for cheap, stable power supply which neither wind nor solar can provide.
There are a few things which ought to be JFDI. If we have any interest in SMRs, then this is one of them.
If we're going to buy SMRs anyway, then this represents far better value than, for example, the carbon capture funding, which serves only to make power more expensive. There is a world market (and it had obvious benefits for eg naval reactor engineering) which we could have a decent shot at.
It’s not we have a decent shot at - it’s something we know we can do because it’s something Rolls Royce already build for our nukes and something that is essential. I’m at a loss as to why we haven’t found £5bn to kick to things off
The Proper Policy has been decided upon, in the structure of government.
1) Wind 2) Solar 3) Large nukes
Anything else would upset policy. In particular, if SMR work, large nukes are dead.
An entire political and engineering structure demolished. People with the wrong skills. Civil servants with contacts in the wrong companies.
There is too much detail involved in trying to rationalise how Trump will run for a 3rd term.
He won't need to run.
Why bother holding elections at all? Not free ones at least - you could lose, and your opponents are Traitors.
Trump is ruling by decree. Congress already passed a law recusing Congress from scrutiny of one issue - simply roll that concept out. An executive President, untrammelled by liberal judges and woke lawyers. Defending the constitution from enemies by continuing in office exactly as it was set out before traitors corrupted it with illegal amendments.
Serious point though - how does the solar power that's fed in to the grid overnight having been stored at generation site batteries get counted?
There's a section for stored energy generation. We don't have a lot of battery storage though. Solar is still, despite what Robert might say, not viable in the UK. We just need to dump £20bn into the RR modular nuclear reactors and get them started up with a manufacturing pilot line and the first few reactors built and running by 2030. If we approve it and get RR started today we might make it but the government moves like molasses and our tech leadership is slipping away without that big order and backing for RR from the UK.
As a side note I was speaking to an energy investor here in Florence today and he confirmed what I already suspected that RR and other UK companies struggle to get overseas money because they don't have the UK government vote of confidence. It's difficult to get foreign governments to buy something that its own one seems uninterested in and he was saying that's the resistance RR are running into when they make their sales pitch "if it's as good as you say then why is your own government not already placing an order for 10 of these and looking at an American solution instead?" is the question they can't answer.
Are we actually looking at an American solution? Wtf?
We should absolutely look at an American solution as part of a thorough assessment
The issue is that the treasury scoring method puts zero weight on the strategic value of domestic capabilities
Which is frankly insane.
How do they weight the potential economic value of kickstarting a domestic manufacturer ? Or is that also ignored ?
The treasury model simply doesn't work for a something from nothing industry. If it was up to the treasury they would have blocked investment tax rebates for AI in the 00s and 10s because the ROI was hugely negative for the government but somehow Osborne resisted them and told the bean counters to STFU.
The treasury is, IMO, one of the most malign departments and absolutely opposed to economic growth. If we sacked all of them tomorrow, scrapped the models and started from scratch we'd see a huge change within a year.
Scrapping it would be daft, but it does seem to require radical reform.
Would it be that daft? It hasn't suddenly gone rogue like the Home Office. The Treasury has been a thoroughly pernicious source of economic failure and instability for at least 4 decades, and probably many times that. In the Thatcher era under Lawson they were running an alternative monetary policy against MT's wishes that eventually resulted in entry to the ERM and we know what followed. There is now the truism in politics that 'The Prime Minister cannot sack the Chancellor and survive' I am sorry but that's not acceptable. If the COTE is not performing in line with the PM's expectations they should be dismissed or found a more appropriate Cabinet position. I cannot see what is worth saving about the current set up.
The Chancellor needs to find a set of obviously viable projects (Metro in Manchester, small nuclear reactors, some road routes) and then pointing out that the Green book needs to be modified so that it accepts these project as viable rather than instantly ruling them out
An issue with a Vance/Trump ticket is that Vance is incapable of not being unpleasant.
Didn't do Trump much harm. Though I accept that he has mysterious powers over the g spots of a large number of US voters.
Yeah. I get you. But that's kinda my point. He doesn't have what Trump has. Mysterious as that may be to non-Americans.
Trump is Boss Hogg in a Herman Goering suit.
It’s like Farage vs Jenrick. Or Boris vs Cummings/JRM. To be a successful (male) right wing populist you need to have that man of the people schtick and some hint of a sense of humour.
To be a successful female right wing populist the recipe seems to be different: stern, serious, frowny appear to be the order of the day.
Serious point though - how does the solar power that's fed in to the grid overnight having been stored at generation site batteries get counted?
There's a section for stored energy generation. We don't have a lot of battery storage though. Solar is still, despite what Robert might say, not viable in the UK. We just need to dump £20bn into the RR modular nuclear reactors and get them started up with a manufacturing pilot line and the first few reactors built and running by 2030. If we approve it and get RR started today we might make it but the government moves like molasses and our tech leadership is slipping away without that big order and backing for RR from the UK.
As a side note I was speaking to an energy investor here in Florence today and he confirmed what I already suspected that RR and other UK companies struggle to get overseas money because they don't have the UK government vote of confidence. It's difficult to get foreign governments to buy something that its own one seems uninterested in and he was saying that's the resistance RR are running into when they make their sales pitch "if it's as good as you say then why is your own government not already placing an order for 10 of these and looking at an American solution instead?" is the question they can't answer.
Are we actually looking at an American solution? Wtf?
Yes, and the assessment has been pushed out to 2028 iirc, it's a bit of a joke really for a country that has hugely rising energy demand with AI being our biggest growth industry and companies looking for cheap, stable power supply which neither wind nor solar can provide.
There are a few things which ought to be JFDI. If we have any interest in SMRs, then this is one of them.
If we're going to buy SMRs anyway, then this represents far better value than, for example, the carbon capture funding, which serves only to make power more expensive. There is a world market (and it had obvious benefits for eg naval reactor engineering) which we could have a decent shot at.
It’s not we have a decent shot at - it’s something we know we can do because it’s something Rolls Royce already build for our nukes and something that is essential. I’m at a loss as to why we haven’t found £5bn to kick to things off
The Proper Policy has been decided upon, in the structure of government.
1) Wind 2) Solar 3) Large nukes
Anything else would upset policy. In particular, if SMR work, large nukes are dead.
An entire political and engineering structure demolished. People with the wrong skills. Civil servants with contacts in the wrong companies.
There really isn’t much difference technically between large and small reactors.
And if the skillset is building large reactors the people should be the first people out the door for the efficiency savings because they aren’t competent given the cost overruns
This, incidentally is bullshit. The US has unilaterally rewritten the terms of the rare earth deals which is why Zelensky is saying no. It's not Zelensky "renegotiating".
https://x.com/Mylovanov/status/1906632421241434449 Trump slams Zelensky: He better take the deal or face “big problems.” Wants NATO - won’t happen, he knows it. We made a deal. Now he’s saying, “I want to renegotiate the deal.”
It is not statistical evidence to say that occurrences XYZABCDEFG occurred when person A was present on each occasion. It is factual evidence.
That is absolutely statistical evidence, because as I understand it they did not say that similar occurrences HJKNP occurred when person A was not present
The evidence presented was not statistically accurate
Serious point though - how does the solar power that's fed in to the grid overnight having been stored at generation site batteries get counted?
There's a section for stored energy generation. We don't have a lot of battery storage though. Solar is still, despite what Robert might say, not viable in the UK. We just need to dump £20bn into the RR modular nuclear reactors and get them started up with a manufacturing pilot line and the first few reactors built and running by 2030. If we approve it and get RR started today we might make it but the government moves like molasses and our tech leadership is slipping away without that big order and backing for RR from the UK.
As a side note I was speaking to an energy investor here in Florence today and he confirmed what I already suspected that RR and other UK companies struggle to get overseas money because they don't have the UK government vote of confidence. It's difficult to get foreign governments to buy something that its own one seems uninterested in and he was saying that's the resistance RR are running into when they make their sales pitch "if it's as good as you say then why is your own government not already placing an order for 10 of these and looking at an American solution instead?" is the question they can't answer.
Are we actually looking at an American solution? Wtf?
Yes, and the assessment has been pushed out to 2028 iirc, it's a bit of a joke really for a country that has hugely rising energy demand with AI being our biggest growth industry and companies looking for cheap, stable power supply which neither wind nor solar can provide.
Whilst this March has been amazing for solar generation, it's not the norm. I think Robert forgets just how little sunlight we get some winters (It's not just the shortened day hours but the massive low pressure cloud blocks, and even high pressure anticyclonic gloom.
Yup the number of days we'd have that gave us enough power to use for the whole day during sunlight hours and have excess generation to fill up a battery is extremely low. For probably 90/100 days in the summer the battery wouldn't be able to charge to 100% due to daytime power use and cloudy conditions causing lower than peak production.
Solar is simply not viable in an overcast country, we should be pumping all of our money into SMRs and fusion power research we can't afford for China to beat us to it.
Solar is viable. The payback period is short and the ROI superb. No one pretends that it solves intermittency (either day-to-day or over the seasons), yet for some reason it gets dismissed as part of the solution because it won't provide 100% of our electricity 100% of the time.
It provides extremely cheap electricity during some parts of the year and the day, reducing our overall reliance on gas - that's a good thing. As we depend more on AC during hotter summers, it will become better matched to demand.
Massive excess supply during sunny days (and overnight for wind power) will stimulate new industries that can take advantage. I've no idea what those will be -- aluminium? steel? - but but economic history tells us the private enterprise will find a way.
I must say that I'm sorry I didn't take up one of the solar offers some time ago. The payback time was then 15 years and in my mid 70's I thought I would be putting money down for the benefit of the purchaser of the house from my sons. However that was ten or so years ago and I now wonder if I'd have been better to advised to sign up to what seemed to be an excellent Essex County Council scheme last year. Especially when I look at my meter now and then outside at the sunshine!
I've read various pieces and comments across the tinterweb suggesting that now is the time to rejoin the EU.
Why? The EU project is about to substantially evolve again. Mutual defence is now going to be just as important as anything else, which means countries outside the EU such as UK and Norway being heavily involved.
We will be part of the post-EU framework, without question.
Did anyone have this on their bingo card? Norway is edging towards a new EU membership bid, as one of Europe’s richest countries ponders how to survive in Trump's world. https://x.com/SanderTordoir/status/1906575285832540572
Surely Vance would do all he can to prevent Trump running again?
Vance doesn't have anything like Trump's talent for motivating the base.
Trump brought him in and Trump can cast him out. He needs the imprimatur for a successful 2028 run.
I still think Trump could run again in 2028 just by ignoring the constitution and threatening to bring the Magatards out on to the street to make the country ungovernable.
@viewcode I've just now managed the time to read your header FPT. Thank you, it's very interesting. I will go back and read the comments now but may I say that, increasingly over the years, my own feelings of patriotism do relate to the land, which will continue, whoever lives there and whatever their culture.
Serious point though - how does the solar power that's fed in to the grid overnight having been stored at generation site batteries get counted?
There's a section for stored energy generation. We don't have a lot of battery storage though. Solar is still, despite what Robert might say, not viable in the UK. We just need to dump £20bn into the RR modular nuclear reactors and get them started up with a manufacturing pilot line and the first few reactors built and running by 2030. If we approve it and get RR started today we might make it but the government moves like molasses and our tech leadership is slipping away without that big order and backing for RR from the UK.
As a side note I was speaking to an energy investor here in Florence today and he confirmed what I already suspected that RR and other UK companies struggle to get overseas money because they don't have the UK government vote of confidence. It's difficult to get foreign governments to buy something that its own one seems uninterested in and he was saying that's the resistance RR are running into when they make their sales pitch "if it's as good as you say then why is your own government not already placing an order for 10 of these and looking at an American solution instead?" is the question they can't answer.
Are we actually looking at an American solution? Wtf?
Yes, and the assessment has been pushed out to 2028 iirc, it's a bit of a joke really for a country that has hugely rising energy demand with AI being our biggest growth industry and companies looking for cheap, stable power supply which neither wind nor solar can provide.
There are a few things which ought to be JFDI. If we have any interest in SMRs, then this is one of them.
If we're going to buy SMRs anyway, then this represents far better value than, for example, the carbon capture funding, which serves only to make power more expensive. There is a world market (and it had obvious benefits for eg naval reactor engineering) which we could have a decent shot at.
It’s not we have a decent shot at - it’s something we know we can do because it’s something Rolls Royce already build for our nukes and something that is essential. I’m at a loss as to why we haven’t found £5bn to kick to things off
The Proper Policy has been decided upon, in the structure of government.
1) Wind 2) Solar 3) Large nukes
Anything else would upset policy. In particular, if SMR work, large nukes are dead.
An entire political and engineering structure demolished. People with the wrong skills. Civil servants with contacts in the wrong companies.
Are large nukes still in the pipeline, or just the ones that have reached the Concorde-esque "even more expensive to cancel than to continue" stage of absurdity?
From this distance, it's hard to see beyond as much solar and wind as possible (cheap albeit unreliable, but plenty more capacity possible) and as little gas as strictly necessary (controllable but expensive). I'm not sure that the niche that nuclear was meant to occupy (baseload at a highish but stable price) still exists- whether big nuke or little nuke.
Surely Vance would do all he can to prevent Trump running again?
Vance doesn't have anything like Trump's talent for motivating the base.
Trump brought him in and Trump can cast him out. He needs the imprimatur for a successful 2028 run.
I still think Trump could run again in 2028 just by ignoring the constitution and threatening to bring the Magatards out on to the street to make the country ungovernable.
You would also get the BernieBros and AOC fans on the streets too if that happened.
However if the 22nd amendment was ignored the whole US constitution effectively falls apart anyway, though to get away with it he would still need to be popular enough to be able to win a third term
Serious point though - how does the solar power that's fed in to the grid overnight having been stored at generation site batteries get counted?
There's a section for stored energy generation. We don't have a lot of battery storage though. Solar is still, despite what Robert might say, not viable in the UK. We just need to dump £20bn into the RR modular nuclear reactors and get them started up with a manufacturing pilot line and the first few reactors built and running by 2030. If we approve it and get RR started today we might make it but the government moves like molasses and our tech leadership is slipping away without that big order and backing for RR from the UK.
As a side note I was speaking to an energy investor here in Florence today and he confirmed what I already suspected that RR and other UK companies struggle to get overseas money because they don't have the UK government vote of confidence. It's difficult to get foreign governments to buy something that its own one seems uninterested in and he was saying that's the resistance RR are running into when they make their sales pitch "if it's as good as you say then why is your own government not already placing an order for 10 of these and looking at an American solution instead?" is the question they can't answer.
Are we actually looking at an American solution? Wtf?
Yes, and the assessment has been pushed out to 2028 iirc, it's a bit of a joke really for a country that has hugely rising energy demand with AI being our biggest growth industry and companies looking for cheap, stable power supply which neither wind nor solar can provide.
There are a few things which ought to be JFDI. If we have any interest in SMRs, then this is one of them.
If we're going to buy SMRs anyway, then this represents far better value than, for example, the carbon capture funding, which serves only to make power more expensive. There is a world market (and it had obvious benefits for eg naval reactor engineering) which we could have a decent shot at.
It’s not we have a decent shot at - it’s something we know we can do because it’s something Rolls Royce already build for our nukes and something that is essential. I’m at a loss as to why we haven’t found £5bn to kick to things off
The Proper Policy has been decided upon, in the structure of government.
1) Wind 2) Solar 3) Large nukes
Anything else would upset policy. In particular, if SMR work, large nukes are dead.
An entire political and engineering structure demolished. People with the wrong skills. Civil servants with contacts in the wrong companies.
Are large nukes still in the pipeline, or just the ones that have reached the Concorde-esque "even more expensive to cancel than to continue" stage of absurdity?
From this distance, it's hard to see beyond as much solar and wind as possible (cheap albeit unreliable, but plenty more capacity possible) and as little gas as strictly necessary (controllable but expensive). I'm not sure that the niche that nuclear was meant to occupy (baseload at a highish but stable price) still exists- whether big nuke or little nuke.
We can’t competently have big nukes because while the sane thing to do is get South Korea to build them we insist on arsing around with the designs so much they won’t so so
Little nukes should be price predicable as they will be standard design factory products once the first ones are built. Hence we should really be focusing there before someone else grabs the market.
Surely Vance would do all he can to prevent Trump running again?
Vance doesn't have anything like Trump's talent for motivating the base.
Trump brought him in and Trump can cast him out. He needs the imprimatur for a successful 2028 run.
I still think Trump could run again in 2028 just by ignoring the constitution and threatening to bring the Magatards out on to the street to make the country ungovernable.
It's unfortunate, to say the least, that we do not seem to have much (?any) good polling in the USA, because what we are missing, I think is that the Republicans have a very narrow majority indeed in the House of Representatives; one that could vanish even before the 2026 elections. When it probably will, even allowing for the gerrymandering and other anti-democratic activities endemic in the USA.
"Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic Child suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, Department for Education data show" (£)
"Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic Child suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, Department for Education data show" (£)
There is too much detail involved in trying to rationalise how Trump will run for a 3rd term.
He won't need to run.
Why bother holding elections at all? Not free ones at least - you could lose, and your opponents are Traitors.
Trump is ruling by decree. Congress already passed a law recusing Congress from scrutiny of one issue - simply roll that concept out. An executive President, untrammelled by liberal judges and woke lawyers. Defending the constitution from enemies by continuing in office exactly as it was set out before traitors corrupted it with illegal amendments.
Dictators like elections: it gives them the veneer of public approval and hence allows them to portray anything they do as The Will of The People.
As I've said before, there are five key components to any fair and free election. The earlier in the process these are undermined, the easier it is to hide the interference and to rig the result:
1. Free, fair and easy access to registration, for voters and candidates (and, as a result, an accurate electoral roll); 2. A fair campaign, in which candidates can critique each other, promote themselves and have reasonable access to media, where state apparatus is neutral and efficient, and where neither campaigns nor coverage is skewed by excessive spending or donations. 3. Easy and equal (within reasonable limits of practicality) access to voting, free from intimidation or improper incentives. 4. An accurate and speedy count and declaration. 5. The result being implemented.
Trump went 'wrong' in 2020 by waiting until the fourth and fifth components before attempting serious electoral perversion. It is much better for the dictator to fix things at the first and second stages, as - for example - Erdogan is currently trying.
"Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic Child suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, Department for Education data show" (£)
Paywalled, so I cannot read the article, but the actual headline is different:
"A toddler was suspended from nursery after being accused of being transphobic or homophobic, The Telegraph can reveal..."
Note the "or homophobic".
Without reading the article, I see several questions: *) Should toddlers be suspended from nursery/school for bad behaviour? *) Can 'bad behaviour' be classed as homophobic or transphobic comments? *) How many comments should be the trigger?
But I oppose them. They are unnecessary and deeply anti-democratic - there is already a mechanism called "elections" which limits a politician's term as head of state. And if the American people are idiotic enough to want Trump for another term, they should be allowed that option.
It is comforting to think that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for this particular incumbent to run again though.
While I broadly agree with you (that term limits are anti-democratic), I think the argument for them is that the presidency is such a powerful and honoured position, that extensive time in the role also has an anti-democratic effect and presidential term limits serve as another check or balance. Now the Supreme Court has given the president almost unlimited power, that argument is stronger.
That was precisely why they were brought in, by a Republican Party which saw Roosevelt as accreting executive power which threatened the constitutional balance. Trump has taken executive power well beyond anything Roosevelt tried. Even Roosevelt's threat to expand the Supreme Court (which came to nothing in the end) is something the GOP has now echoed,
It has been an issue since the Constitution was first drafted. Roosevelt's fourth term brought it to a head.
If the electorate didn't like the idea of a president serving a fourth term, they could have voted against it by electing someone else.
They could. But as has been noted elsewhere, a liberal democracy is about more than just the tyranny of the majority. And in this case, a supermajority voted for the amendment.
it's pretty hard to conclude that Roosevelt's government in 1945 represented a tyranny - or no more so than prevailed in other comparable wartime (and hence was a result of his extended period in office rather than the political context of the time.
There is too much detail involved in trying to rationalise how Trump will run for a 3rd term.
He won't need to run.
Why bother holding elections at all? Not free ones at least - you could lose, and your opponents are Traitors.
Trump is ruling by decree. Congress already passed a law recusing Congress from scrutiny of one issue - simply roll that concept out. An executive President, untrammelled by liberal judges and woke lawyers. Defending the constitution from enemies by continuing in office exactly as it was set out before traitors corrupted it with illegal amendments.
Dictators like elections: it gives them the veneer of public approval and hence allows them to portray anything they do as The Will of The People.
As I've said before, there are five key components to any fair and free election. The earlier in the process these are undermined, the easier it is to hide the interference and to rig the result:
1. Free, fair and easy access to registration, for voters and candidates (and, as a result, an accurate electoral roll); 2. A fair campaign, in which candidates can critique each other, promote themselves and have reasonable access to media, where state apparatus is neutral and efficient, and where neither campaigns nor coverage is skewed by excessive spending or donations. 3. Easy and equal (within reasonable limits of practicality) access to voting, free from intimidation or improper incentives. 4. An accurate and speedy count and declaration. 5. The result being implemented.
Trump went 'wrong' in 2020 by waiting until the fourth and fifth components before attempting serious electoral perversion. It is much better for the dictator to fix things at the first and second stages, as - for example - Erdogan is currently trying.
We're both aligned on his need to hold performative elections when the result is assured.
As the world has noticed, the 2nd Trump administration is far better planned, organised and staffed compared to the first one. They won't make the same mistakes again - and they have utterly corrupted the GOP in ways that simply were impossible first time out.
I've read various pieces and comments across the tinterweb suggesting that now is the time to rejoin the EU.
Why? The EU project is about to substantially evolve again. Mutual defence is now going to be just as important as anything else, which means countries outside the EU such as UK and Norway being heavily involved.
We will be part of the post-EU framework, without question.
Did anyone have this on their bingo card? Norway is edging towards a new EU membership bid, as one of Europe’s richest countries ponders how to survive in Trump's world. https://x.com/SanderTordoir/status/1906575285832540572
A separate but adjacent organisation would be better than amending the existing EU. Not only would it allow the UK, Norway and Canada to be invited, it would also allow Hungary to be excluded.
I've read various pieces and comments across the tinterweb suggesting that now is the time to rejoin the EU.
Why? The EU project is about to substantially evolve again. Mutual defence is now going to be just as important as anything else, which means countries outside the EU such as UK and Norway being heavily involved.
We will be part of the post-EU framework, without question.
Did anyone have this on their bingo card? Norway is edging towards a new EU membership bid, as one of Europe’s richest countries ponders how to survive in Trump's world. https://x.com/SanderTordoir/status/1906575285832540572
A separate but adjacent organisation would be better than amending the existing EU. Not only would it allow the UK, Norway and Canada to be invited, it would also allow Hungary to be excluded.
NATOWS - North Atlantic Treaty Organization Without Septics. Wouldn't even need much rebranding.
"Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic Child suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, Department for Education data show" (£)
Paywalled, so I cannot read the article, but the actual headline is different:
"A toddler was suspended from nursery after being accused of being transphobic or homophobic, The Telegraph can reveal..."
Note the "or homophobic".
Without reading the article, I see several questions: *) Should toddlers be suspended from nursery/school for bad behaviour? *) Can 'bad behaviour' be classed as homophobic or transphobic comments? *) How many comments should be the trigger?
I would ask a very different question - what were those children doing that was so bad that they were upsetting/ attacking the other children to the extent they had to be removed
Surely Vance would do all he can to prevent Trump running again?
Vance doesn't have anything like Trump's talent for motivating the base.
Trump brought him in and Trump can cast him out. He needs the imprimatur for a successful 2028 run.
I still think Trump could run again in 2028 just by ignoring the constitution and threatening to bring the Magatards out on to the street to make the country ungovernable.
If Vance somehow outmanoeuvred Trump for the Republican nomination in 2028, then Trump could just go scorched earth and run third party for a third term.
It does seem like if Trump wants to run that he’d win the Republican Primary yet again…
"Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic Child suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, Department for Education data show" (£)
Paywalled, so I cannot read the article, but the actual headline is different:
"A toddler was suspended from nursery after being accused of being transphobic or homophobic, The Telegraph can reveal..."
Note the "or homophobic".
Without reading the article, I see several questions: *) Should toddlers be suspended from nursery/school for bad behaviour? *) Can 'bad behaviour' be classed as homophobic or transphobic comments? *) How many comments should be the trigger?
Like you I haven't read the pay walled article, but if it's true it's good of the nursery to publish how unsuitable it is to care for young children.
"Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic Child suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, Department for Education data show" (£)
Paywalled, so I cannot read the article, but the actual headline is different:
"A toddler was suspended from nursery after being accused of being transphobic or homophobic, The Telegraph can reveal..."
Note the "or homophobic".
Without reading the article, I see several questions: *) Should toddlers be suspended from nursery/school for bad behaviour? *) Can 'bad behaviour' be classed as homophobic or transphobic comments? *) How many comments should be the trigger?
It's notable that very few details are available, and that the stats are for years 2022-3 and that the Telegraph seems to reach quite a lot of conclusions.
It's interesting that the paper and talking heads are going on about 'toddlers being blamed'. I'd say that the issue is that at that 3 or 4 (not toddlers btw) they will be parroting things their parents have said, so it's a matter for the parents to sort out their own behaviour.
I think we can expect a PMQ on this on Wednesday.
I wonder how many people are going to blame Mr Starmer? Jenrick?
I've read various pieces and comments across the tinterweb suggesting that now is the time to rejoin the EU.
Why? The EU project is about to substantially evolve again. Mutual defence is now going to be just as important as anything else, which means countries outside the EU such as UK and Norway being heavily involved.
We will be part of the post-EU framework, without question.
Did anyone have this on their bingo card? Norway is edging towards a new EU membership bid, as one of Europe’s richest countries ponders how to survive in Trump's world. https://x.com/SanderTordoir/status/1906575285832540572
A separate but adjacent organisation would be better than amending the existing EU. Not only would it allow the UK, Norway and Canada to be invited, it would also allow Hungary to be excluded.
It strikes me as very much a non-story. Politicians (like the Swiss) are always trying to 'edge toward' EU membership. When the voters get a say, they wisely stamp on it.
"Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic Child suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, Department for Education data show" (£)
I see Lord Young is featured looking very swish and confident in his nice suit. Odd. The last I heard was that he'd been cancelled by the woke tyranny and rendered a pauper.
@viewcode I've just now managed the time to read your header FPT. Thank you, it's very interesting. I will go back and read the comments now but may I say that, increasingly over the years, my own feelings of patriotism do relate to the land, which will continue, whoever lives there and whatever their culture.
Are you a Liberal?
Clear the way for liberty, the land must all be free, Liberals will not falter from the fight, tho’ stern it be, ‘Til the flag we love so well will fly from sea to sea O’er the land that is free for the people.
There is too much detail involved in trying to rationalise how Trump will run for a 3rd term.
He won't need to run.
Why bother holding elections at all? Not free ones at least - you could lose, and your opponents are Traitors.
Trump is ruling by decree. Congress already passed a law recusing Congress from scrutiny of one issue - simply roll that concept out. An executive President, untrammelled by liberal judges and woke lawyers. Defending the constitution from enemies by continuing in office exactly as it was set out before traitors corrupted it with illegal amendments.
Dictators like elections: it gives them the veneer of public approval and hence allows them to portray anything they do as The Will of The People.
As I've said before, there are five key components to any fair and free election. The earlier in the process these are undermined, the easier it is to hide the interference and to rig the result:
1. Free, fair and easy access to registration, for voters and candidates (and, as a result, an accurate electoral roll); 2. A fair campaign, in which candidates can critique each other, promote themselves and have reasonable access to media, where state apparatus is neutral and efficient, and where neither campaigns nor coverage is skewed by excessive spending or donations. 3. Easy and equal (within reasonable limits of practicality) access to voting, free from intimidation or improper incentives. 4. An accurate and speedy count and declaration. 5. The result being implemented.
Trump went 'wrong' in 2020 by waiting until the fourth and fifth components before attempting serious electoral perversion. It is much better for the dictator to fix things at the first and second stages, as - for example - Erdogan is currently trying.
They are better prepared this time. The question is whether or not they can achieve what Erdogan has done in Turkey, within the course of this term. I am hoping not, but it's far from certain.
"Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic Child suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, Department for Education data show" (£)
Paywalled, so I cannot read the article, but the actual headline is different:
"A toddler was suspended from nursery after being accused of being transphobic or homophobic, The Telegraph can reveal..."
Note the "or homophobic".
Without reading the article, I see several questions: *) Should toddlers be suspended from nursery/school for bad behaviour? *) Can 'bad behaviour' be classed as homophobic or transphobic comments? *) How many comments should be the trigger?
It's notable that very few details are available, and that the stats are for years 2022-3 and that the Telegraph seems to reach quite a lot of conclusions.
It's interesting that the paper and talking heads are going on about 'toddlers being blamed'. I'd say that the issue is that at that 3 or 4 (not toddlers btw) they will be parroting things their parents have said, so it's a matter for the parents to sort out their own behaviour.
I think we can expect a PMQ on this on Wednesday.
I wonder how many people are going to blame Mr Starmer? Jenrick?
One of my teacher grandchildren was, some time ago and only for a short while, a supply teacher in a school where among year 12 and 13 there were quite a few racist and homophobic 'children' who supported their statements with such phrases as 'my Dad says'!
I've read various pieces and comments across the tinterweb suggesting that now is the time to rejoin the EU.
Why? The EU project is about to substantially evolve again. Mutual defence is now going to be just as important as anything else, which means countries outside the EU such as UK and Norway being heavily involved.
We will be part of the post-EU framework, without question.
Did anyone have this on their bingo card? Norway is edging towards a new EU membership bid, as one of Europe’s richest countries ponders how to survive in Trump's world. https://x.com/SanderTordoir/status/1906575285832540572
A separate but adjacent organisation would be better than amending the existing EU. Not only would it allow the UK, Norway and Canada to be invited, it would also allow Hungary to be excluded.
Oh, any manner of arrangements is conceivable.
I was just pointing out that what happens over the next few years isn't predictable. A much closer relationship with the EU - and the countries around it, Norway and Ukraine included, Canada too, possibly - is quite likely. What it looks like is yet to be determined.
Donald Trump says he's "angry" with Vladimir Putin. But one Russian paper today takes issue with President Trump: “So far Trump has not fulfilled his obligations...agreements reached on the level of Trump are only worth a few pennies on a market day.” #ReadingRussia
This might be controversial but I don't find Trump's desire to run for a third term particularly outrageous. The twenty second amendment is pretty new in constitutional terms and was arguably only introduced because of Republican anger at FDR. What would be outrageous is if Trump achieved this by just ignoring the constitution or pressuring the Supreme Court to set the amendment aside.
Yes, but that's the point. The proper way for Trump to seek a third term would be to amend the US constitution to repeal the 22nd Amendment - but that's difficult to do unless he can manipulate Congress so as to achieve a two-thirds majority (the states might be easier - there is an exploitable loophole there).
He won't though. His style, both in business and politics, is to push ahead irrespective of the law and challenge others to come against him. And given that there is sufficient wriggle room in the constitution under the 25th Amendment for the Electoral College to 'elect' a president who doesn't qualify, there's certainly scope for the SCOTUS to rule that states should not prevent such candidates from being denied access to the ballot on those grounds.
There isn't really any scope though, unless the supreme court decides to ignore the clear intention of the 22nd amendment using transparently dodgy sophistry. At which point the whole constitution is up for grabs.
I've read various pieces and comments across the tinterweb suggesting that now is the time to rejoin the EU.
Why? The EU project is about to substantially evolve again. Mutual defence is now going to be just as important as anything else, which means countries outside the EU such as UK and Norway being heavily involved.
We will be part of the post-EU framework, without question.
Did anyone have this on their bingo card? Norway is edging towards a new EU membership bid, as one of Europe’s richest countries ponders how to survive in Trump's world. https://x.com/SanderTordoir/status/1906575285832540572
A separate but adjacent organisation would be better than amending the existing EU. Not only would it allow the UK, Norway and Canada to be invited, it would also allow Hungary to be excluded.
As I understand it moves are afoot to suspend the existing voting processes. This would allow Hungary to be effectively removed as a voting member by the other voting members.
The existing structures are both too complex and too rigid to cope with the current situation. Germany and others have already suspended absolute shibboleths of the EU at various times, which calls into question the purpose of having such a myriad of structures and rules.
A more flexible organisation - a European Community so to speak - would allow any European country (a broad definition) to mutually support each other in trade and defence. And that has to be the direction of travel - unless they want to maintain an EU with Hungary still inside it and UK / Norway outside it.
And never mind Norway considering a membership bid which will take years as per the current structures. We don't have time for all that. A simple treaty is what is needed. Leave the rEU in place to keep driving the machinery until it evolves across to the new treaty organisation.
Donald Trump says he's "angry" with Vladimir Putin. But one Russian paper today takes issue with President Trump: “So far Trump has not fulfilled his obligations...agreements reached on the level of Trump are only worth a few pennies on a market day.” #ReadingRussia
I will say this for Starmer if talking, holding scores of conferences and meetings, and creating quangos is the recipe for success he will gain another landslide
Unfortunately for him, one can talk as much as one wants but the public have to see results and so far there is a blank page
Not quite a blank space.
"The PM revealed in his speech today that the UK government have returned 24,000 people with "no right to be here" since last year's General Election. He claimed it would have taken the Tories' failed Rwanda scheme "80 years to achieve" to achieve the same results."
Short term the numbers seems to depend on the weather. Since the last election (4 July 2024) up to the 27 March 2025, there have been 35K migrants arrived by boat. That compares with 28K in the corresponding period the year before and 42K the year before that.
It's possible to spin the numbers in any number of ways depending on the periods you choose.
To my eye, the numbers appear to be fairly stable long term but lumpy short term depending on the weather.
But I oppose them. They are unnecessary and deeply anti-democratic - there is already a mechanism called "elections" which limits a politician's term as head of state. And if the American people are idiotic enough to want Trump for another term, they should be allowed that option.
It is comforting to think that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for this particular incumbent to run again though.
While I broadly agree with you (that term limits are anti-democratic), I think the argument for them is that the presidency is such a powerful and honoured position, that extensive time in the role also has an anti-democratic effect and presidential term limits serve as another check or balance. Now the Supreme Court has given the president almost unlimited power, that argument is stronger.
That was precisely why they were brought in, by a Republican Party which saw Roosevelt as accreting executive power which threatened the constitutional balance. Trump has taken executive power well beyond anything Roosevelt tried. Even Roosevelt's threat to expand the Supreme Court (which came to nothing in the end) is something the GOP has now echoed,
It has been an issue since the Constitution was first drafted. Roosevelt's fourth term brought it to a head.
If the electorate didn't like the idea of a president serving a fourth term, they could have voted against it by electing someone else.
They could. But as has been noted elsewhere, a liberal democracy is about more than just the tyranny of the majority. And in this case, a supermajority voted for the amendment.
it's pretty hard to conclude that Roosevelt's government in 1945 represented a tyranny - or no more so than prevailed in other comparable wartime (and hence was a result of his extended period in office rather than the political context of the time.
It was the New Deal that bothered Republicans more. They just saw his WWII powers as some sort of extension of that, and worried about what might come after - and the fourth term exacerbated their fears. That he was dead not long after made a mockery of that, of course.
But what seems unreasonable to us now is perhaps less so in the then context ? After all the change in the reach of government, between the 1920s and 1940s, was enormous.
Surely Vance would do all he can to prevent Trump running again?
Vance doesn't have anything like Trump's talent for motivating the base.
Trump brought him in and Trump can cast him out. He needs the imprimatur for a successful 2028 run.
I still think Trump could run again in 2028 just by ignoring the constitution and threatening to bring the Magatards out on to the street to make the country ungovernable.
If Vance somehow outmanoeuvred Trump for the Republican nomination in 2028, then Trump could just go scorched earth and run third party for a third term.
It does seem like if Trump wants to run that he’d win the Republican Primary yet again…
That doesn't work. If Trump - who absolutely controls the Republicans right now - were to lose primacy to such an extent that he ran and lost to a rival, then what's his support base for a third-party campaign? He'd be running solely to spite Vance because victory would be literally impossible, and whose money would he be spending on that? Besides, there are filing deadline rules that make it difficult-to-impossible to switch party (or non-party) after contesting primaries, and while Trump is not one for following rules, he's only able to ignore them while he controls the system.
But I oppose them. They are unnecessary and deeply anti-democratic - there is already a mechanism called "elections" which limits a politician's term as head of state. And if the American people are idiotic enough to want Trump for another term, they should be allowed that option.
It is comforting to think that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for this particular incumbent to run again though.
While I broadly agree with you (that term limits are anti-democratic), I think the argument for them is that the presidency is such a powerful and honoured position, that extensive time in the role also has an anti-democratic effect and presidential term limits serve as another check or balance. Now the Supreme Court has given the president almost unlimited power, that argument is stronger.
That was precisely why they were brought in, by a Republican Party which saw Roosevelt as accreting executive power which threatened the constitutional balance. Trump has taken executive power well beyond anything Roosevelt tried. Even Roosevelt's threat to expand the Supreme Court (which came to nothing in the end) is something the GOP has now echoed,
It has been an issue since the Constitution was first drafted. Roosevelt's fourth term brought it to a head.
Its been Dems who have been advocating increasing the size of SCOTUS and also ending the senate filibuster.
That they now think that things are different doesn't excuse them from having played dangerous political games.
The Dems were advocating an increase in the SCOTUS because the GOP had blocked appointments while there was a Dem POTUS then appointed a right wing supermajority once there was a Rep POTUS. Hence why there are now concerns about recent rulings and them overturning the 22nd so that Trump can run again. The Dems should have acted to restore balance in the SCOTUS but were incredibly naive/complacent about Trump.
Just noting FPT that Lord Sumption has apparently come out in favour of Letby being perhaps innocent, though the report in the Mail is extremely thin and adds nothing of substance to the story, though Sumption is one of the weightiest figure in the law.
FWIW, though I think the case against Letby is sound, I think there is going to be enough for the CCRC to refer the verdicts back to the Court of Appeal.
That's the easy bit. There is a very recent example of how the CA deals with CCRC referrals, from a case where the evidence is very thin indeed and where there was apparent grounds that a 'cell confession' (a notorious field) had been retracted by the unreliable criminal alleging it had been made.
The CA carved through it with an interesting mix of scalpel and bulldozer, upholding the conviction. Not for the faint hearted it is here:
Compared with this the case against Letby is strong.
I have no idea on the Letby case (guilt is deterministic not statistical and statistical evidence should not be sufficient for a guilty verdict) but "Supreme Judge has an reckon because some of the people he knows has a reckon" has exactly the same status as "bloke down the pub said so". Sumption is far too keen on talking to the press.
The evidence against Letby -- which was presented over 26 weeks, which shows how much there was and how much it was scrutinised -- was not purely statistical.
I wasn't at the trial but SFAICS no expert statistical evidence was called; it didn't enter into the trial (correct me if I am wrong).
It is not statistical evidence to say that occurrences XYZABCDEFG occurred when person A was present on each occasion. It is factual evidence.
Statistical evidence is when a DNA sample is found at location X, and an expert says there is a 1 in Y chance of it belonging/not belonging to person Z.
I think that’s correct. Data and associations within the data (that is, Letby was on duty when these things happened) were presented, but no inferential statistics, no quantitative probabilities.
"Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic Child suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, Department for Education data show" (£)
I am shocked and surprised to find out that a politician from the populist far right turns out to be a grifter looking to enrich themselves. Next you’ll be telling me that Netanyahu and Trump are dodgy,
I've read various pieces and comments across the tinterweb suggesting that now is the time to rejoin the EU.
Why? The EU project is about to substantially evolve again. Mutual defence is now going to be just as important as anything else, which means countries outside the EU such as UK and Norway being heavily involved.
We will be part of the post-EU framework, without question.
Did anyone have this on their bingo card? Norway is edging towards a new EU membership bid, as one of Europe’s richest countries ponders how to survive in Trump's world. https://x.com/SanderTordoir/status/1906575285832540572
A separate but adjacent organisation would be better than amending the existing EU. Not only would it allow the UK, Norway and Canada to be invited, it would also allow Hungary to be excluded.
I mentioned a few months ago that after their election, Iceland was now poised to submit an application to the EU, with a polling majority in favour of joining since 2022. Polls in Norway show support for EU membership has also moved sharply upward and is hitting historic highs since Sweden and Finland joined NATO.
"Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic Child suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, Department for Education data show" (£)
"Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic Child suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, Department for Education data show" (£)
Paywalled, so I cannot read the article, but the actual headline is different:
"A toddler was suspended from nursery after being accused of being transphobic or homophobic, The Telegraph can reveal..."
Note the "or homophobic".
Without reading the article, I see several questions: *) Should toddlers be suspended from nursery/school for bad behaviour? *) Can 'bad behaviour' be classed as homophobic or transphobic comments? *) How many comments should be the trigger?
But I oppose them. They are unnecessary and deeply anti-democratic - there is already a mechanism called "elections" which limits a politician's term as head of state. And if the American people are idiotic enough to want Trump for another term, they should be allowed that option.
It is comforting to think that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for this particular incumbent to run again though.
While I broadly agree with you (that term limits are anti-democratic), I think the argument for them is that the presidency is such a powerful and honoured position, that extensive time in the role also has an anti-democratic effect and presidential term limits serve as another check or balance. Now the Supreme Court has given the president almost unlimited power, that argument is stronger.
That was precisely why they were brought in, by a Republican Party which saw Roosevelt as accreting executive power which threatened the constitutional balance. Trump has taken executive power well beyond anything Roosevelt tried. Even Roosevelt's threat to expand the Supreme Court (which came to nothing in the end) is something the GOP has now echoed,
It has been an issue since the Constitution was first drafted. Roosevelt's fourth term brought it to a head.
Washington (very wisely) not seeking a third term established an expectation that it was a good thing for presidents not to do more than two. And no one did until Roosevelt.
The only way I can see in which Trump does not stand in 2028 is poor health. But that strikes me as more likely than a 1 in 17 chance. So the bet is not particularly good value.
Hang on, I've got that the wrong way around - I don't think poor health is as high a chance as 16 out of 17. So the bet is good value.
Surely Vance would do all he can to prevent Trump running again?
Vance doesn't have anything like Trump's talent for motivating the base.
Trump brought him in and Trump can cast him out. He needs the imprimatur for a successful 2028 run.
I still think Trump could run again in 2028 just by ignoring the constitution and threatening to bring the Magatards out on to the street to make the country ungovernable.
You would also get the BernieBros and AOC fans on the streets too if that happened.
However if the 22nd amendment was ignored the whole US constitution effectively falls apart anyway, though to get away with it he would still need to be popular enough to be able to win a third term
Bernie will be out of the picture due to age and AOC could be interned or more conveniently find herself too close to a high rise window, if she continues to gain popularity. The normal etiquettes of US politics (like adherence to the Constitution and not icing your opponents) have left the building.
Surely Vance would do all he can to prevent Trump running again?
Vance doesn't have anything like Trump's talent for motivating the base.
Trump brought him in and Trump can cast him out. He needs the imprimatur for a successful 2028 run.
I still think Trump could run again in 2028 just by ignoring the constitution and threatening to bring the Magatards out on to the street to make the country ungovernable.
You would also get the BernieBros and AOC fans on the streets too if that happened.
However if the 22nd amendment was ignored the whole US constitution effectively falls apart anyway, though to get away with it he would still need to be popular enough to be able to win a third term
Bernie will be out of the picture due to age and AOC could be interned or more conveniently find herself too close to a high rise window, if she continues to gain popularity. The normal etiquettes of US politics (like adherence to the Constitution and not icing your opponents) have left the building.
So? If you have a 40% approval rating you ain't getting re elected without a civil war
Comments
Unfortunately for him, one can talk as much as one wants but the public have to see results and so far there is a blank page
Marine Le Pen guilty of embezzlement
The Wehrmacht, counter-attacking at Arnhem, in 1944:
Arnhem, Bicycle Squadron on the Move
Scherl Bilderdienst Westen, September 1944, Anglo-American encirclement plan at Arnhem failed. The first enemy gliders had barely landed when the German intervention reserves began to move. A bicycle squadron on the march to the landing site. SS-PK Pospesch
ADN Image Archive, World War II 1939-45, Battle of Arnhem (Holland), September 17-27, 1944. The Allied airborne operation near Arnhem, which began on September 17, 1944, was intended to secure the Rhine, Meuse, and Waal crossings. After suffering heavy losses, the landed troops were withdrawn at the end of September. This bicycle squadron was one of the quickly assembled German forces deployed against the recently landed Allied paratroopers.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-S73823,_Arnheim,_Radfahrschwadron_im_Anmarsch.jpg
If we have any interest in SMRs, then this is one of them.
If we're going to buy SMRs anyway, then this represents far better value than, for example, the carbon capture funding, which serves only to make power more expensive.
There is a world market (and it had obvious benefits for eg naval reactor engineering) which we could have a decent shot at.
It is not statistical evidence to say that occurrences XYZABCDEFG occurred when person A was present on each occasion. It is factual evidence.
Statistical evidence is when a DNA sample is found at location X, and an expert says there is a 1 in Y chance of it belonging/not belonging to person Z.
One of the real problems the USA has is that they are massively inefficient in their use of energy - which means that they need to build 2-3x as much energy infrastructure as peer economies.
Trump has taken executive power well beyond anything Roosevelt tried.
Even Roosevelt's threat to expand the Supreme Court (which came to nothing in the end) is something the GOP has now echoed,
It has been an issue since the Constitution was first drafted. Roosevelt's fourth term brought it to a head.
We think the Prime Minister has a lot of power and they do have the power to destroy us all (I suppose) but in truth they can only try to make things happen, they can't actually make it happen.
That's the truth of both democracy and dictatorship - the people at the top can cajole and persuade but it's the people at the bottom who do the actual work.
Basically they are incredibly risk averse, which is a stance that is ultimately doomed to fail.
Politics and international relations are changing so rapidly that it's far from an impossibility. While it looks extremely unlikely today, it's quite possible to conceive of circumstances which change that.
I'd agree evolution is more likely, but watch this space.
Sentencing to come. If she gets only a 12 month political ban, she might well not appeal.
But as has been noted elsewhere, a liberal democracy is about more than just the tyranny of the majority. And in this case, a supermajority voted for the amendment.
He won't though. His style, both in business and politics, is to push ahead irrespective of the law and challenge others to come against him. And given that there is sufficient wriggle room in the constitution under the 25th Amendment for the Electoral College to 'elect' a president who doesn't qualify, there's certainly scope for the SCOTUS to rule that states should not prevent such candidates from being denied access to the ballot on those grounds.
Yet it has not (afaics) become a feature of a routinely corrupt political process - though stats seem hard to come by. Though there have been very seriously corrupt senior politicians in France in recent years. And there are weird features such as dangerous drivers being let off by Presidential Pardon after an election; I'm not sure if this still happens - the link below is 2007.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_France
https://archive.is/y5X0T
Though I accept that he has mysterious powers over the g spots of a large number of US voters.
He doesn't have what Trump has.
Mysterious as that may be to non-Americans.
That they now think that things are different doesn't excuse them from having played dangerous political games.
It provides extremely cheap electricity during some parts of the year and the day, reducing our overall reliance on gas - that's a good thing. As we depend more on AC during hotter summers, it will become better matched to demand.
Massive excess supply during sunny days (and overnight for wind power) will stimulate new industries that can take advantage. I've no idea what those will be -- aluminium? steel? - but but economic history tells us the private enterprise will find a way.
"The PM revealed in his speech today that the UK government have returned 24,000 people with "no right to be here" since last year's General Election. He claimed it would have taken the Tories' failed Rwanda scheme "80 years to achieve" to achieve the same results."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-keir-starmer-makes-major-34961992?utm_source=mirror_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=_politics_newsletter&utm_content=&utm_term=&ruid=0215e7a4-19cd-4cbb-ba4f-e764417448df&hx=39120cbbab28c56ec611055d6eb20cdccfc7ca0a2c3c887d423caafab464d47c
1) Wind
2) Solar
3) Large nukes
Anything else would upset policy. In particular, if SMR work, large nukes are dead.
An entire political and engineering structure demolished. People with the wrong skills. Civil servants with contacts in the wrong companies.
He won't need to run.
Why bother holding elections at all? Not free ones at least - you could lose, and your opponents are Traitors.
Trump is ruling by decree. Congress already passed a law recusing Congress from scrutiny of one issue - simply roll that concept out. An executive President, untrammelled by liberal judges and woke lawyers. Defending the constitution from enemies by continuing in office exactly as it was set out before traitors corrupted it with illegal amendments.
To be a successful female right wing populist the recipe seems to be different: stern, serious, frowny appear to be the order of the day.
And if the skillset is building large reactors the people should be the first people out the door for the efficiency savings because they aren’t competent given the cost overruns
"This is how America controls Britain | Angus Hanton interview"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QeZdylrmg
The US has unilaterally rewritten the terms of the rare earth deals which is why Zelensky is saying no. It's not Zelensky "renegotiating".
https://x.com/Mylovanov/status/1906632421241434449
Trump slams Zelensky: He better take the deal or face “big problems.” Wants NATO - won’t happen, he knows it.
We made a deal. Now he’s saying, “I want to renegotiate the deal.”
The evidence presented was not statistically accurate
Especially when I look at my meter now and then outside at the sunshine!
https://x.com/SanderTordoir/status/1906575285832540572
Trump brought him in and Trump can cast him out. He needs the imprimatur for a successful 2028 run.
I still think Trump could run again in 2028 just by ignoring the constitution and threatening to bring the Magatards out on to the street to make the country ungovernable.
@viewcode I've just now managed the time to read your header FPT. Thank you, it's very interesting. I will go back and read the comments now but may I say that, increasingly over the years, my own feelings of patriotism do relate to the land, which will continue, whoever lives there and whatever their culture.
From this distance, it's hard to see beyond as much solar and wind as possible (cheap albeit unreliable, but plenty more capacity possible) and as little gas as strictly necessary (controllable but expensive). I'm not sure that the niche that nuclear was meant to occupy (baseload at a highish but stable price) still exists- whether big nuke or little nuke.
However if the 22nd amendment was ignored the whole US constitution effectively falls apart anyway, though to get away with it he would still need to be popular enough to be able to win a third term
Little nukes should be price predicable as they will be standard design factory products once the first ones are built. Hence we should really be focusing there before someone else grabs the market.
Even more so now that we can’t 100% trust the USA
Child suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, Department for Education data show" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/31/toddler-kicked-out-of-nursery-for-being-transphobic/
As I've said before, there are five key components to any fair and free election. The earlier in the process these are undermined, the easier it is to hide the interference and to rig the result:
1. Free, fair and easy access to registration, for voters and candidates (and, as a result, an accurate electoral roll);
2. A fair campaign, in which candidates can critique each other, promote themselves and have reasonable access to media, where state apparatus is neutral and efficient, and where neither campaigns nor coverage is skewed by excessive spending or donations.
3. Easy and equal (within reasonable limits of practicality) access to voting, free from intimidation or improper incentives.
4. An accurate and speedy count and declaration.
5. The result being implemented.
Trump went 'wrong' in 2020 by waiting until the fourth and fifth components before attempting serious electoral perversion. It is much better for the dictator to fix things at the first and second stages, as - for example - Erdogan is currently trying.
"A toddler was suspended from nursery after being accused of being transphobic or homophobic, The Telegraph can reveal..."
Note the "or homophobic".
Without reading the article, I see several questions:
*) Should toddlers be suspended from nursery/school for bad behaviour?
*) Can 'bad behaviour' be classed as homophobic or transphobic comments?
*) How many comments should be the trigger?
As the world has noticed, the 2nd Trump administration is far better planned, organised and staffed compared to the first one. They won't make the same mistakes again - and they have utterly corrupted the GOP in ways that simply were impossible first time out.
Wouldn't even need much rebranding.
It does seem like if Trump wants to run that he’d win the Republican Primary yet again…
It's notable that very few details are available, and that the stats are for years 2022-3 and that the Telegraph seems to reach quite a lot of conclusions.
It's interesting that the paper and talking heads are going on about 'toddlers being blamed'. I'd say that the issue is that at that 3 or 4 (not toddlers btw) they will be parroting things their parents have said, so it's a matter for the parents to sort out their own behaviour.
I think we can expect a PMQ on this on Wednesday.
I wonder how many people are going to blame Mr Starmer? Jenrick?
Clear the way for liberty, the land must all be free,
Liberals will not falter from the fight, tho’ stern it be,
‘Til the flag we love so well will fly from sea to sea
O’er the land that is free for the people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSnO8DeOJwM
https://www.historyworkshop.org.uk/democracy/the-land-song/
The question is whether or not they can achieve what Erdogan has done in Turkey, within the course of this term. I am hoping not, but it's far from certain.
I was just pointing out that what happens over the next few years isn't predictable.
A much closer relationship with the EU - and the countries around it, Norway and Ukraine included, Canada too, possibly - is quite likely. What it looks like is yet to be determined.
Donald Trump says he's "angry" with Vladimir Putin. But one Russian paper today takes issue with President Trump: “So far Trump has not fulfilled his obligations...agreements reached on the level of Trump are only worth a few pennies on a market day.” #ReadingRussia
https://x.com/BBCSteveR/status/1906622203140927851
The existing structures are both too complex and too rigid to cope with the current situation. Germany and others have already suspended absolute shibboleths of the EU at various times, which calls into question the purpose of having such a myriad of structures and rules.
A more flexible organisation - a European Community so to speak - would allow any European country (a broad definition) to mutually support each other in trade and defence. And that has to be the direction of travel - unless they want to maintain an EU with Hungary still inside it and UK / Norway outside it.
And never mind Norway considering a membership bid which will take years as per the current structures. We don't have time for all that. A simple treaty is what is needed. Leave the rEU in place to keep driving the machinery until it evolves across to the new treaty organisation.
The stats are here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats
Short term the numbers seems to depend on the weather.
Since the last election (4 July 2024) up to the 27 March 2025, there have been 35K migrants arrived by boat. That compares with 28K in the corresponding period the year before and 42K the year before that.
It's possible to spin the numbers in any number of ways depending on the periods you choose.
To my eye, the numbers appear to be fairly stable long term but lumpy short term depending on the weather.
But there is no doubt that Labour is returning substantially more illegal immigrants than the Tories did.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2024/how-many-people-are-returned-from-the-uk#s-2
That he was dead not long after made a mockery of that, of course.
But what seems unreasonable to us now is perhaps less so in the then context ?
After all the change in the reach of government, between the 1920s and 1940s, was enormous.
The destruction is awful.
https://x.com/thuttag/status/1906291285943521494
Hence why there are now concerns about recent rulings and them overturning the 22nd so that Trump can run again.
The Dems should have acted to restore balance in the SCOTUS but were incredibly naive/complacent about Trump.
Hang on, I've got that the wrong way around - I don't think poor health is as high a chance as 16 out of 17. So the bet is good value.