reports today from within Labour that the 'fiscal rules' are going in the budget in the Autumn. I'm no fan of them but Reeves surely realises the fig leaf of following them religiously is the only thing stopping the markets going Truss on her?
It's not the fiscal rules that need to go, it is the election promises. The comfortably-off need to more heavily taxed.
All parties are scared of putting up the BIG taxes such as Income Tax and VAT, so they commit to not raising them. It's a logical thing to do if you don't want to lose. Trouble is you then have to find weird little stealth taxes which you haven't been forced to make promises about.
There's an interesting article on tory machinations in the ST this morning.
Highlights...
Everyone knows it's all over for KB. It's just a question of exactly which electoral calamities she is going to be the human shield for ahead of the inevitable binning. The bit about KB's giddyup speech after the locals was darkly amusing.
Johnson's Tonton Macoute in the party have identified 8 seats which they think he can win in a by-election if the incumbent were to step aside.
In an amazing development, apparently, the toothy doyenne of the Management Consultancy Industrial Complex, Laura Trott is being touted as a leadership candidate.
Well, the voters might take a very different view.
I think it would be bloody funny, if Boris was parachuted in for some "safe" Tory seat, only to lose in a landslide. The Christchurch by-election, all over again.
Given a recent More in Common poll had a Boris led party not only overtaking Labour but overtaking Reform too to take the lead highly unlikely. Indeed if Boris stood in a by election in a Conservative seat he would almost certainly increase the Conservative majority
That poll was taken before the post LE poll movement and in any case if 'accurate' shows a big move to Reform since July 2024 with the Boris Boosted Tories up 1.5% from the same. So, he might, but very very risky and if he runs and loses a safer seat its all over for the Tories, they become a rump minor party
Given the Tories are 3rd or even 4th in some polls the Tories can't play safe. 16% under PR would be manageable, the Tories would still get 100 odd MPs, 16% under FPTP sees most Tory MPs lose their seats.
Of course it is not just Boris who MiC found gave the Tories a poll boost, MiC also found Sunak would get the Tories back to 24% as they got at the GE and tied with Reform and Rishi is still an MP.
Jenrick however polled 1% below Kemi, even if he won 2% from Reform he turned centrists off so doesn't look like he is the answer either, there is no point trying to out Farage Farage while he leads Reform
I never set much store by hypothetical polls.
Remember all the polls saying that many Republicans would switch from Trump if he were convicted of a felony? In the end, none of them did.
Well they were spot on in 2019 that Boris would win, spot on in 1990 Major would win etc.
Hypothetical polls beyond just named leader with add on questions may be irrelevant, though I think even those had the vast majority of Republicans sticking with Trump even if he was convicted (and of course his offence would probably have been charged as a misdemeanour anyway if it wasn't him)
Come on Rentoul, he wasn't PM in the year to Jun 23.
He was for the first quarter of it. And his policies applied for the rest of it.
Talking of which, what were the immigration numbers like during Jenrick's time as Immigration minister? It would clearly be unfair (and a bit dishonest) to blame him for peak Boriswave happening on his watch, but since when has politics been fair or honest?
“Opinion polls don’t always provide a precise picture of voters’ mood – and the next general election is still four years away. But Labour strategists will doubtless be poring over the data, and it’s not pretty.
Analysis by the Guardian found Labour’s drop in the opinion polls in its first 10 months of power is the largest of any newly elected UK government in 40 years.”
Personally I think Labour have given up the next election, and their main aim now is to stay the second largest party. After the flirtation with Faragism, policy initiatives now look aimed at shoring up the left, not taking back the centre. The 'debate with Farage', which actually makes him more likely to win (but has the positive side effect of making those who dislike him more likely to vote tactically to keep him out) is another sign of this to me.
I tend to agree. They already believe, doomily, they’re a one term government, unless things drastically change; hence the maneuvers by Rayner
Rayner as leader probably can’t alter Labour’s fate. But she has got the charisma Starmer entirely lacks and she could save them from oblivion
The other thing about Rayner is, for areas like mine in the Red Wall vulnerable to Reform, she appeals to working class people and communities because she’s one of us. This must be true as we keep being to this by Home Counties, middle class, centrists.
Have the Fukkers peaked too early? Four years is a long time and they won't be able to campaign on insurgency because they may have some record as incumbents which will have to be defended by then.
Liz Truss was elected with a hefty 57% of the vote but only lasted 49 days in office. Maybe Labour's 170 seat majority doesn't necessarily mean they stay in office for the full 5 years.
If disability changes fall next month and he has, say, 120 rebels there is some risk to the cohesion of the government. With the U turns etc his authority is pretty much shot if he can't get the changes through (i very much hope he can't)
Have the Fukkers peaked too early? Four years is a long time and they won't be able to campaign on insurgency because they may have some record as incumbents which will have to be defended by then.
“Last week Mauritius signed a partnership with Russia covering fisheries and marine research.
They pledged to “deepen collaboration” and “reaffirmed their commitment to advancing cooperation in agriculture, research, irrigation, and fisheries, and building on a longstanding partnership.””
Gee, look at that timing. Those pristine waters will now be plundered by Russian and Chinese ships
I struggle to find a word for this deal that doesn’t involve the concept of “treason”
But surely Trump wouldn't be happy with something that was to the benefit of Russia?
The problem is that whilst the whole thing looks incompetent it isn't really registering with the international commentariat. I've been following quite a few securocrats since 2022 and they've had nothing to say on it.
That’s not my experience at all. I follow a few defence/security experts on X and they are unanimous that the deal is bad, and bewilderingly bad. They cannot understand why we’ve done it
There's an interesting article on tory machinations in the ST this morning.
Highlights...
Everyone knows it's all over for KB. It's just a question of exactly which electoral calamities she is going to be the human shield for ahead of the inevitable binning. The bit about KB's giddyup speech after the locals was darkly amusing.
Johnson's Tonton Macoute in the party have identified 8 seats which they think he can win in a by-election if the incumbent were to step aside.
In an amazing development, apparently, the toothy doyenne of the Management Consultancy Industrial Complex, Laura Trott is being touted as a leadership candidate.
Well, the voters might take a very different view.
I think it would be bloody funny, if Boris was parachuted in for some "safe" Tory seat, only to lose in a landslide. The Christchurch by-election, all over again.
Given a recent More in Common poll had a Boris led party not only overtaking Labour but overtaking Reform too to take the lead highly unlikely. Indeed if Boris stood in a by election in a Conservative seat he would almost certainly increase the Conservative majority
That poll was taken before the post LE poll movement and in any case if 'accurate' shows a big move to Reform since July 2024 with the Boris Boosted Tories up 1.5% from the same. So, he might, but very very risky and if he runs and loses a safer seat its all over for the Tories, they become a rump minor party
Given the Tories are 3rd or even 4th in some polls the Tories can't play safe. 16% under PR would be manageable, the Tories would still get 100 odd MPs, 16% under FPTP sees most Tory MPs lose their seats.
Of course it is not just Boris who MiC found gave the Tories a poll boost, MiC also found Sunak would get the Tories back to 24% as they got at the GE and tied with Reform and Rishi is still an MP.
Jenrick however polled 1% below Kemi, even if he won 2% from Reform he turned centrists off so doesn't look like he is the answer either, there is no point trying to out Farage Farage while he leads Reform
I never set much store by hypothetical polls.
Remember all the polls saying that many Republicans would switch from Trump if he were convicted of a felony? In the end, none of them did.
Well they were spot on in 2019 that Boris would win, spot on in 1990 Major would win etc.
Hypothetical polls beyond just named leader with add on questions may be irrelevant, though I think even those had the vast majority of Republicans sticking with Trump even if he was convicted (and of course his offence would probably have been charged as a misdemeanour anyway if it wasn't him)
I don't think any of that really amounts to a killer blow: back in the day Boris and his admirers would have just laughed it off. It's more that Boris was a fad that now seems rather embarrassing to have succumbed to. (We'll probably be saying the same about Reform at some point, but not for a while yet.)
If Farage is the answer, then I think we're asking the wrong questions.
My problem with Farage is his unwillingness to criticise Trump in any way, and his half hearted mealy-mouthed criticisms of Russia and Putin.
I don't want a country run by someone like that.
I hope that something will turn up, because I really don't think we want to find out the answer to what a Farage premiership would look like.
Farage’s attitude towards Putin is what deters me from supporting Reform. Pretty well everyone I befriended through the Conservatives has now joined Reform.
Wow.
You’re surprised? I’m not
I find Reform voters everywhere. It’s not just my posh Notting Hill friends, it’s all sorts
Overnight supporting Reform seems to have become respectable and there is no more shame in admitting it. Indeed people say it overtly. It’s quite a change
I'd assumed at least in London it was still at the sex party level of respectability. I'm guessing these are somewhat older voters? Whilst some young people are confidently Reform I suspect quite a few are nervous about stating their support.
The thing is that Farage has got them where they are. No doubt about that. Could he now be their biggest weakness though?
The man who brought you Brexit and Trump - he certainly should be.
“Last week Mauritius signed a partnership with Russia covering fisheries and marine research.
They pledged to “deepen collaboration” and “reaffirmed their commitment to advancing cooperation in agriculture, research, irrigation, and fisheries, and building on a longstanding partnership.””
Gee, look at that timing. Those pristine waters will now be plundered by Russian and Chinese ships
I struggle to find a word for this deal that doesn’t involve the concept of “treason”
But surely Trump wouldn't be happy with something that was to the benefit of Russia?
The problem is that whilst the whole thing looks incompetent it isn't really registering with the international commentariat. I've been following quite a few securocrats since 2022 and they've had nothing to say on it.
That’s not my experience at all. I follow a few defence/security experts on X and they are unanimous that the deal is bad, and bewilderingly bad. They cannot understand why we’ve done it
There's an interesting article on tory machinations in the ST this morning.
Highlights...
Everyone knows it's all over for KB. It's just a question of exactly which electoral calamities she is going to be the human shield for ahead of the inevitable binning. The bit about KB's giddyup speech after the locals was darkly amusing.
Johnson's Tonton Macoute in the party have identified 8 seats which they think he can win in a by-election if the incumbent were to step aside.
In an amazing development, apparently, the toothy doyenne of the Management Consultancy Industrial Complex, Laura Trott is being touted as a leadership candidate.
Well, the voters might take a very different view.
I think it would be bloody funny, if Boris was parachuted in for some "safe" Tory seat, only to lose in a landslide. The Christchurch by-election, all over again.
Given a recent More in Common poll had a Boris led party not only overtaking Labour but overtaking Reform too to take the lead highly unlikely. Indeed if Boris stood in a by election in a Conservative seat he would almost certainly increase the Conservative majority
That poll was taken before the post LE poll movement and in any case if 'accurate' shows a big move to Reform since July 2024 with the Boris Boosted Tories up 1.5% from the same. So, he might, but very very risky and if he runs and loses a safer seat its all over for the Tories, they become a rump minor party
Given the Tories are 3rd or even 4th in some polls the Tories can't play safe. 16% under PR would be manageable, the Tories would still get 100 odd MPs, 16% under FPTP sees most Tory MPs lose their seats.
Of course it is not just Boris who MiC found gave the Tories a poll boost, MiC also found Sunak would get the Tories back to 24% as they got at the GE and tied with Reform and Rishi is still an MP.
Jenrick however polled 1% below Kemi, even if he won 2% from Reform he turned centrists off so doesn't look like he is the answer either, there is no point trying to out Farage Farage while he leads Reform
I never set much store by hypothetical polls.
Remember all the polls saying that many Republicans would switch from Trump if he were convicted of a felony? In the end, none of them did.
Well they were spot on in 2019 that Boris would win, spot on in 1990 Major would win etc.
Hypothetical polls beyond just named leader with add on questions may be irrelevant, though I think even those had the vast majority of Republicans sticking with Trump even if he was convicted (and of course his offence would probably have been charged as a misdemeanour anyway if it wasn't him)
Come on Rentoul, he wasn't PM in the year to Jun 23.
He was for the first quarter of it. And his policies applied for the rest of it.
Talking of which, what were the immigration numbers like during Jenrick's time as Immigration minister? It would clearly be unfair (and a bit dishonest) to blame him for peak Boriswave happening on his watch, but since when has politics been fair or honest?
He announced his resignation a month into the period or less, yes his policies were in place but my point was if this was used against him in a return he says 'not me, gov' and the majority of partially politically engaged just accept that as the dates don't match up - those are the sort he'd appeal to more than the fully politically invested
“Last week Mauritius signed a partnership with Russia covering fisheries and marine research.
They pledged to “deepen collaboration” and “reaffirmed their commitment to advancing cooperation in agriculture, research, irrigation, and fisheries, and building on a longstanding partnership.””
Gee, look at that timing. Those pristine waters will now be plundered by Russian and Chinese ships
I struggle to find a word for this deal that doesn’t involve the concept of “treason”
How were scotland's fishing fleets supposed to make use of the pristine waters around Chagos?
I doubt Russia will be sending its arctic fleet to Chagos anytime soon. It’s probably sharing of R&D.
The Mauritians have been very good at playing the global entrepôt game - positioning as the gateway to Africa for Middle Eastern investors, a tax-efficient vehicle for Indian inbound and outbound FDI, an infrastructure target for China, all the while making big efforts to institute anti-corruption, transparency and governance structures to get itself off the EU’s black list of uncooperative tax havens. They also have the Swiss-style approach to dictators and dictatorships: none of our business, we want to be everyone’s friend.
Have the Fukkers peaked too early? Four years is a long time and they won't be able to campaign on insurgency because they may have some record as incumbents which will have to be defended by then.
Liz Truss was elected with a hefty 57% of the vote but only lasted 49 days in office. Maybe Labour's 170 seat majority doesn't necessarily mean they stay in office for the full 5 years.
The seats in 2024 were won by slim majorities compared to previous General Elections. Labours massive majority was the equivalent of a football team winning the league on 57 points by winning every home game and losing every away game whilst all the other teams drew every match; they won the league by 18points, their fans can say they are champions by a wide margin, but it was a freak and it probably won't be enough ever again
“Last week Mauritius signed a partnership with Russia covering fisheries and marine research.
They pledged to “deepen collaboration” and “reaffirmed their commitment to advancing cooperation in agriculture, research, irrigation, and fisheries, and building on a longstanding partnership.””
Gee, look at that timing. Those pristine waters will now be plundered by Russian and Chinese ships
I struggle to find a word for this deal that doesn’t involve the concept of “treason”
But surely Trump wouldn't be happy with something that was to the benefit of Russia?
The problem is that whilst the whole thing looks incompetent it isn't really registering with the international commentariat. I've been following quite a few securocrats since 2022 and they've had nothing to say on it.
That’s not my experience at all. I follow a few defence/security experts on X and they are unanimous that the deal is bad, and bewilderingly bad. They cannot understand why we’ve done it
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
“Last week Mauritius signed a partnership with Russia covering fisheries and marine research.
They pledged to “deepen collaboration” and “reaffirmed their commitment to advancing cooperation in agriculture, research, irrigation, and fisheries, and building on a longstanding partnership.””
Gee, look at that timing. Those pristine waters will now be plundered by Russian and Chinese ships
I struggle to find a word for this deal that doesn’t involve the concept of “treason”
Have the Fukkers peaked too early? Four years is a long time and they won't be able to campaign on insurgency because they may have some record as incumbents which will have to be defended by then.
Liz Truss was elected with a hefty 57% of the vote but only lasted 49 days in office. Maybe Labour's 170 seat majority doesn't necessarily mean they stay in office for the full 5 years.
The seats in 2024 were won by slim majorities compared to previous General Elections. Labours massive majority was the equivalent of a football team winning the league on 57 points by winning every home game and losing every away game whilst all the other teams drew every match; they won the league by 18points, their fans can say they are champions by a wide margin, but it was a freak and it probably won't be enough ever again
Yeah. You could have some very weird results in 2029 - for example if the Tories got 22% their vote collapsing to Refirm in the red wall but regaining some support in the SE , East and London then dozens of seats could go Lab to Con (depending on the level of Reform advance) Tories though probably end up like the LDs - a few stronger areas and nothing at all elsewhere
“Last week Mauritius signed a partnership with Russia covering fisheries and marine research.
They pledged to “deepen collaboration” and “reaffirmed their commitment to advancing cooperation in agriculture, research, irrigation, and fisheries, and building on a longstanding partnership.””
Gee, look at that timing. Those pristine waters will now be plundered by Russian and Chinese ships
I struggle to find a word for this deal that doesn’t involve the concept of “treason”
WRT Reform v Conservatives, organisations and states, at a time of crisis, are so often led by incompetents, and/or people who prefer tearing chunks out of rivals, rather than taking on the existential enemy.
So, the Roman Empire got Honorius and Valentinian, and their useless courtiers, in the Fifth century crisis.
The Liberals of the Twenties got Lloyd George and Asquith and Samuel, who actually had ability, but couldn’t stop putting the knife into each other.
The Conservatives have had a run of poor leaders, who get undermined in turn, by a cabal of MP’s who plainly hate each other.
And yet, when things are going well, treachery and incompetence are survivable. There are broader shifts in allegiance and outlook that threaten the Conservatives, just as they did the 1920’s Liberals.
“Last week Mauritius signed a partnership with Russia covering fisheries and marine research.
They pledged to “deepen collaboration” and “reaffirmed their commitment to advancing cooperation in agriculture, research, irrigation, and fisheries, and building on a longstanding partnership.””
Gee, look at that timing. Those pristine waters will now be plundered by Russian and Chinese ships
I struggle to find a word for this deal that doesn’t involve the concept of “treason”
How were scotland's fishing fleets supposed to make use of the pristine waters around Chagos?
I doubt Russia will be sending its arctic fleet to Chagos anytime soon. It’s probably sharing of R&D.
The Mauritians have been very good at playing the global entrepôt game - positioning as the gateway to Africa for Middle Eastern investors, a tax-efficient vehicle for Indian inbound and outbound FDI, an infrastructure target for China, all the while making big efforts to institute anti-corruption, transparency and governance structures to get itself off the EU’s black list of uncooperative tax havens. They also have the Swiss-style approach to dictators and dictatorships: none of our business, we want to be everyone’s friend.
The threat to the MPA is genuine, I think, based on the thoughts of those in environmental circles. But it's a classic case of people with no history of concern about a "woke" issue suddenly becoming deeply invested in it because it suits their political agenda. How often has Leon complained about trawling in the North Sea?
The MPA also had an ulterior motive of keeping the Chagossians out, as revealed in some FCO leaks. It's not as though the UK Government was suddenly overcome with environmental concern - but it should be, because it (was) our single most important ecological asset.
“Last week Mauritius signed a partnership with Russia covering fisheries and marine research.
They pledged to “deepen collaboration” and “reaffirmed their commitment to advancing cooperation in agriculture, research, irrigation, and fisheries, and building on a longstanding partnership.””
Gee, look at that timing. Those pristine waters will now be plundered by Russian and Chinese ships
I struggle to find a word for this deal that doesn’t involve the concept of “treason”
How were scotland's fishing fleets supposed to make use of the pristine waters around Chagos?
I doubt Russia will be sending its arctic fleet to Chagos anytime soon. It’s probably sharing of R&D.
The Mauritians have been very good at playing the global entrepôt game - positioning as the gateway to Africa for Middle Eastern investors, a tax-efficient vehicle for Indian inbound and outbound FDI, an infrastructure target for China, all the while making big efforts to institute anti-corruption, transparency and governance structures to get itself off the EU’s black list of uncooperative tax havens. They also have the Swiss-style approach to dictators and dictatorships: none of our business, we want to be everyone’s friend.
The threat to the MPA is genuine, I think, based on the thoughts of those in environmental circles. But it's a classic case of people with no history of concern about a "woke" issue suddenly becoming deeply invested in it because it suits their political agenda. How often as Leon complained about trawling in the North Sea?
The MPA also had an ulterior motive of keeping the Chagossians out, as revealed in some FCO leaks. It's not as though the UK Government was suddenly overcome with environmental concern - but it should be, because it (was) our single most important ecological asset.
This is bollocks. I’m quite earnestly ‘green’
See my many cries of despair at the ruination of the planet on my travels. See my disputes with @BartholomewRoberts when he wants to concrete over the country for identikit estates
It’s one of my big beefs with the Carswell plan I linked below. He’s happy to let rip and develop the Green Belt. I am definitely NOT
As someone else wrote, what a way to start a Sunday morning! I wish Ms Cyclefree all the best; others in my circle are in a similar position and it's exceedingly worrying. However she is, compared with those in my circle, quite young and has therefore a reasonable chance of coming to a position where matters are going to admittedly deteriorate, but much more slowly. I was told, some three years ago, at the age of 84, that if I did not have an operation on my spine I would be, in a couple of years, paralysed and bed-bound. I had the operation and while I'm by no means as mobile as I was five years ago, when things started to go wrong, I am sitting in my study in front of a computer typing this. Not well, admittedly, but I am. I walked here from the breakfast table, admittedly again using a walking aid, but I can get about the house. I have to have help showering and so on but I'm by no means bed-bound. And I've bought an electric scooter on which I can do some shopping, go to social groups within a reasonable range and get into at least one of the local pubs, luckily my favourite. The point of this is to cry Nil Desperandum, and to encourage Ms Cyclefree to go for it and work towards recovery. The support post operation that I've had from physios, occupational therapists and the like has been encouraging; I am now having monthly appointments with a physio who thinks he can get me walking unaided, before too long. I've also had considerable support on here, notably from MattW. So while I am certain that when our colleague looks to the future it looks anything but rosy, with determination and support she can find a future which fulfilling and rewarding.
I don't do deadlifts; can't stand unaided at the moment but I do half an hour's 'physical jerks' every morning. I've often thought that if I could get to a gym I would.
Pure bodyweight exercises will get you a long way if you're starting from a low base: Most people start by lifting less than their own weight on a bar, after all. The main advantage of fixed weights is that you get to measure your progress easily, and increase easily by a fixed amount rather than letting yourself plateau.
It's something I've thought about, although pretty well all my problems are balance-related and weights alone are not much use there. If I could stand, or sit on a stool, unsupported then weights would be useful. It's amazing how much effective muscle can be lost as a result of the sort of surgery I had.
Google the Otago Programme exercises, which did great things helping older folk stay mobile and independent. They’re all relatively basic things that need no equipment or particular strength. The two most important things as you get older are balance, and being able to stand up out of a chair; those are the first things to focus on.
Have the Fukkers peaked too early? Four years is a long time and they won't be able to campaign on insurgency because they may have some record as incumbents which will have to be defended by then.
I reckon you did that yourself to make their supporters look thick.
“Last week Mauritius signed a partnership with Russia covering fisheries and marine research.
They pledged to “deepen collaboration” and “reaffirmed their commitment to advancing cooperation in agriculture, research, irrigation, and fisheries, and building on a longstanding partnership.””
Gee, look at that timing. Those pristine waters will now be plundered by Russian and Chinese ships
I struggle to find a word for this deal that doesn’t involve the concept of “treason”
But surely Trump wouldn't be happy with something that was to the benefit of Russia?
The problem is that whilst the whole thing looks incompetent it isn't really registering with the international commentariat. I've been following quite a few securocrats since 2022 and they've had nothing to say on it.
That’s not my experience at all. I follow a few defence/security experts on X and they are unanimous that the deal is bad, and bewilderingly bad. They cannot understand why we’ve done it
I don't understand the whole thing.
The islands were national territory of the United Kingdom, but no British nationals lived there. Instead, the entire 'population' was simply a United States military base.
Claims were laid by displaced residents who had moved somewhere else? Or been moved somewhere else?
Why couldn't we simply do a reverse-scramble for Africa?
"The United Kingdom no longer wants this territory and sees it no longer part of our nation. First one to plant an alternative flag can have it."
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Of course not but the point is that through a smart meter energy companies can offer cheaper or free energy periods
WRT Reform v Conservatives, organisations and states, at a time of crisis, are so often led by incompetents, and/or people who prefer tearing chunks out of rivals, rather than taking on the existential enemy.
So, the Roman Empire got Honorius and Valentinian, and their useless courtiers, in the Fifth century crisis.
The Liberals of the Twenties got Lloyd George and Asquith and Samuel, who actually had ability, but couldn’t stop putting the knife into each other.
The Conservatives have had a run of poor leaders, who get undermined in turn, by a cabal of MP’s who plainly hate each other.
And yet, when things are going well, treachery and incompetence are survivable. There are broader shifts in allegiance and outlook that threaten the Conservatives, just as they did the 1920’s Liberals.
Of course the Liberals are still here, indeed in a few recent polls they have even been ahead of the Conservatives.
Labour replacing the Liberals as the Conservatives main opposition also meant the Conservatives were in office for most of the 20th century. I suspect if Reform replaced the Conservatives as the main party of the right Labour would fancy their chances of leading most governments this century, alone or with the LDs
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
WRT Reform v Conservatives, organisations and states, at a time of crisis, are so often led by incompetents, and/or people who prefer tearing chunks out of rivals, rather than taking on the existential enemy.
So, the Roman Empire got Honorius and Valentinian, and their useless courtiers, in the Fifth century crisis.
The Liberals of the Twenties got Lloyd George and Asquith and Samuel, who actually had ability, but couldn’t stop putting the knife into each other.
The Conservatives have had a run of poor leaders, who get undermined in turn, by a cabal of MP’s who plainly hate each other.
And yet, when things are going well, treachery and incompetence are survivable. There are broader shifts in allegiance and outlook that threaten the Conservatives, just as they did the 1920’s Liberals.
Of course the Liberals are still here, indeed in a few recent polls they have even been ahead of the Conservatives
If Farage is the answer, then I think we're asking the wrong questions.
My problem with Farage is his unwillingness to criticise Trump in any way, and his half hearted mealy-mouthed criticisms of Russia and Putin.
I don't want a country run by someone like that.
I hope that something will turn up, because I really don't think we want to find out the answer to what a Farage premiership would look like.
Farage’s attitude towards Putin is what deters me from supporting Reform. Pretty well everyone I befriended through the Conservatives has now joined Reform.
Plenty of hardline Thatcherites and hard Brexiteers I know have joined Reform, however the more moderate One Nation types are still generally in the Conservatives. Some fiscal conservatives are also wary of Farage's populist giveaways.
Personally I am now fully in favour of PR. FPTP has had its day, it worked last century when we had 2 or at most 2 and a half main parties. It doesn't work now when we have 5 main UK wide parties and more including the nationalist parties in Scotland, Wales and NI and Unionists in the latter.
Most European nations, New Zealand, Israel, Brazil, South Africa already have it and it would properly ensure full representation of all views in parliament, with the Greens, Labour, LDs, Tories and Reform all getting numbers of MPs that fairly represented their voteshare.
Otherwise we just end up with tactical votes for the least worst option whether to keep out Farage or Starmer without any real enthusiasm by many voters for the choice they have to make.
But PR has huge disadvantages too. In particular, it virtually guarantees that most government policy will be thrashed out, not in front of the electorate or in Parliament, but in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms as coalition agreements are hammered out. It also makes it much less likely that you'll have a stable majority government that lasts a full term - essential (though not sufficient) if this country's chronic societal problems are to be addressed. In most cases (see Israel for a particularly disastrous example) it puts a disproportionate amount of power in the hands of tiny minority parties. Finally, it is paradise for political hacks - especially the party list variant, which ensures they can get into office without the boring necessity of anybody actually voting for them.
So, overall, I think we should be very careful before making the technocratic assumption that changing our voting system will make anything better for anyone except our already far too entitled political class.
As someone else wrote, what a way to start a Sunday morning! I wish Ms Cyclefree all the best; others in my circle are in a similar position and it's exceedingly worrying. However she is, compared with those in my circle, quite young and has therefore a reasonable chance of coming to a position where matters are going to admittedly deteriorate, but much more slowly. I was told, some three years ago, at the age of 84, that if I did not have an operation on my spine I would be, in a couple of years, paralysed and bed-bound. I had the operation and while I'm by no means as mobile as I was five years ago, when things started to go wrong, I am sitting in my study in front of a computer typing this. Not well, admittedly, but I am. I walked here from the breakfast table, admittedly again using a walking aid, but I can get about the house. I have to have help showering and so on but I'm by no means bed-bound. And I've bought an electric scooter on which I can do some shopping, go to social groups within a reasonable range and get into at least one of the local pubs, luckily my favourite. The point of this is to cry Nil Desperandum, and to encourage Ms Cyclefree to go for it and work towards recovery. The support post operation that I've had from physios, occupational therapists and the like has been encouraging; I am now having monthly appointments with a physio who thinks he can get me walking unaided, before too long. I've also had considerable support on here, notably from MattW. So while I am certain that when our colleague looks to the future it looks anything but rosy, with determination and support she can find a future which fulfilling and rewarding.
I don't do deadlifts; can't stand unaided at the moment but I do half an hour's 'physical jerks' every morning. I've often thought that if I could get to a gym I would.
Pure bodyweight exercises will get you a long way if you're starting from a low base: Most people start by lifting less than their own weight on a bar, after all. The main advantage of fixed weights is that you get to measure your progress easily, and increase easily by a fixed amount rather than letting yourself plateau.
It's something I've thought about, although pretty well all my problems are balance-related and weights alone are not much use there. If I could stand, or sit on a stool, unsupported then weights would be useful. It's amazing how much effective muscle can be lost as a result of the sort of surgery I had.
Google the Otago Programme exercises, which did great things helping older folk stay mobile and independent. They’re all relatively basic things that need no equipment or particular strength. The two most important things as you get older are balance, and being able to stand up out of a chair; those are the first things to focus on.
Those things are very important, but it's also very important (and do-able at any age) to build muscle - as indicated in the video I posted, even very elderly people can do it if they take care and go up in small increments.
The lady's mother in the video was doubled over with osteopaenia, and because she's built so much muscle she can now stand upright for long periods, clean the house as she would wish, and basically live a more normal and active life. The muscles are supporting the bits of her that aren't working so well.
And as the man says, unless you're dead or you have a very specific condition, you can build muscle.
Don't get me wrong - I am sure the Otago programme works, and I applaud anyone getting more active, it all helps.
I just listened to a song by Joy Division called ‘Twenty Four Hours’ that is the most disturbing bit of music I’ve heard for a long time, and I liked early Nirvana!
Only listened to it because I saw a 1984interview with George Michael on a show called “Eight Days A Week” in which he said he thought the side of the album it was on was beautiful.
The best Joy Division songs (like that one) are suicide notes turned into exquisite chamber music
Which is indeed quite disturbing when you know what happened to Ian Curtis
Agree totally, Decades from the Album Closer sounds like the synths are harpsichords and it’s musically beautiful but a huge darkness and melancholy to the tune and the lyrics which, as you said, when you know about Ian Curtis’ demons and end is very foreboding.
Reform's impact in this part of East London notwithstanding, the "all things to all people" approach will only get them so far. They are currently the recepticle of anger, dillusionment, frustration and exhaustion but also hope inasmuch as some who support Farage believe he is the answer.
I'd suggest if they think that they've not worked out the question.
The first nonsense is to describe Reform as a "hard right" party - they aren't. Culturally conservative, nationalist and anti-immigrant, yes but on spending they are as far up the Magic Money Tree as Jeremy Corbyn.
The problem is fiscal rectitude doesn't sell - saying "we can't go on as we are" is fine until you actually have to do something about it (ask any addict). Carswell plays the same old tune of tax and public spending cuts but the truth, we all know, is tax rises (substantial) AND spending cuts (once you've worked out what you can't cut).
Carswell is probably right in saying the relationship between State and citizen needs to be redefined but it can't solely be on the basis of less of the former though there's a point about personal responsibility which often gets forgotten.
Reform's impact in this part of East London notwithstanding, the "all things to all people" approach will only get them so far. They are currently the recepticle of anger, dillusionment, frustration and exhaustion but also hope inasmuch as some who support Farage believe he is the answer.
I'd suggest if they think that they've not worked out the question.
The first nonsense is to describe Reform as a "hard right" party - they aren't. Culturally conservative, nationalist and anti-immigrant, yes but on spending they are as far up the Magic Money Tree as Jeremy Corbyn.
The problem is fiscal rectitude doesn't sell - saying "we can't go on as we are" is fine until you actually have to do something about it (ask any addict). Carswell plays the same old tune of tax and public spending cuts but the truth, we all know, is tax rises (substantial) AND spending cuts (once you've worked out what you can't cut).
Carswell is probably right in saying the relationship between State and citizen needs to be redefined but it can't solely be on the basis of less of the former though there's a point about personal responsibility which often gets forgotten.
If they can reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, I suspect all else will be forgiven. That is the main reason people are supporting them after all.
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase - certainly that is what's happening in our epoch. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
As someone else wrote, what a way to start a Sunday morning! I wish Ms Cyclefree all the best; others in my circle are in a similar position and it's exceedingly worrying. However she is, compared with those in my circle, quite young and has therefore a reasonable chance of coming to a position where matters are going to admittedly deteriorate, but much more slowly. I was told, some three years ago, at the age of 84, that if I did not have an operation on my spine I would be, in a couple of years, paralysed and bed-bound. I had the operation and while I'm by no means as mobile as I was five years ago, when things started to go wrong, I am sitting in my study in front of a computer typing this. Not well, admittedly, but I am. I walked here from the breakfast table, admittedly again using a walking aid, but I can get about the house. I have to have help showering and so on but I'm by no means bed-bound. And I've bought an electric scooter on which I can do some shopping, go to social groups within a reasonable range and get into at least one of the local pubs, luckily my favourite. The point of this is to cry Nil Desperandum, and to encourage Ms Cyclefree to go for it and work towards recovery. The support post operation that I've had from physios, occupational therapists and the like has been encouraging; I am now having monthly appointments with a physio who thinks he can get me walking unaided, before too long. I've also had considerable support on here, notably from MattW. So while I am certain that when our colleague looks to the future it looks anything but rosy, with determination and support she can find a future which fulfilling and rewarding.
I don't do deadlifts; can't stand unaided at the moment but I do half an hour's 'physical jerks' every morning. I've often thought that if I could get to a gym I would.
Pure bodyweight exercises will get you a long way if you're starting from a low base: Most people start by lifting less than their own weight on a bar, after all. The main advantage of fixed weights is that you get to measure your progress easily, and increase easily by a fixed amount rather than letting yourself plateau.
It's something I've thought about, although pretty well all my problems are balance-related and weights alone are not much use there. If I could stand, or sit on a stool, unsupported then weights would be useful. It's amazing how much effective muscle can be lost as a result of the sort of surgery I had.
Google the Otago Programme exercises, which did great things helping older folk stay mobile and independent. They’re all relatively basic things that need no equipment or particular strength. The two most important things as you get older are balance, and being able to stand up out of a chair; those are the first things to focus on.
Those things are very important, but it's also very important (and do-able at any age) to build muscle - as indicated in the video I posted, even very elderly people can do it if they take care and go up in small increments.
The lady's mother in the video was doubled over with osteopaenia, and because she's built so much muscle she can now stand upright for long periods, clean the house as she would wish, and basically live a more normal and active life. The muscles are supporting the bits of her that aren't working so well.
And as the man says, unless you're dead or you have a very specific condition, you can build muscle.
Don't get me wrong - I am sure the Otago programme works, and I applaud anyone getting more active, it all helps.
Yes, but if the OP can’t currently get out of a chair unaided, building muscle is less important than balance and focusing on those muscles that will get you up out of a chair. Once you can’t stand from a chair unaided, you’re heading for a care home, which is why all older PB’ers should be repeating that exercise daily.
“Opinion polls don’t always provide a precise picture of voters’ mood – and the next general election is still four years away. But Labour strategists will doubtless be poring over the data, and it’s not pretty.
Analysis by the Guardian found Labour’s drop in the opinion polls in its first 10 months of power is the largest of any newly elected UK government in 40 years.”
Personally I think Labour have given up the next election, and their main aim now is to stay the second largest party. After the flirtation with Faragism, policy initiatives now look aimed at shoring up the left, not taking back the centre. The 'debate with Farage', which actually makes him more likely to win (but has the positive side effect of making those who dislike him more likely to vote tactically to keep him out) is another sign of this to me.
I tend to agree. They already believe, doomily, they’re a one term government, unless things drastically change; hence the maneuvers by Rayner
Rayner as leader probably can’t alter Labour’s fate. But she has got the charisma Starmer entirely lacks and she could save them from oblivion
The other thing about Rayner is, for areas like mine in the Red Wall vulnerable to Reform, she appeals to working class people and communities because she’s one of us. This must be true as we keep being to this by Home Counties, middle class, centrists.
She's on target to lose her seat to Reform.
Can’t be true. We keep being told how the working class love her.
I just listened to a song by Joy Division called ‘Twenty Four Hours’ that is the most disturbing bit of music I’ve heard for a long time, and I liked early Nirvana!
Only listened to it because I saw a 1984interview with George Michael on a show called “Eight Days A Week” in which he said he thought the side of the album it was on was beautiful.
The best Joy Division songs (like that one) are suicide notes turned into exquisite chamber music
Which is indeed quite disturbing when you know what happened to Ian Curtis
Agree totally, Decades from the Album Closer sounds like the synths are harpsichords and it’s musically beautiful but a huge darkness and melancholy to the tune and the lyrics which, as you said, when you know about Ian Curtis’ demons and end is very foreboding.
I just played a few of their songs on Sonos, booming around my flat (including Twenty Four Hours)
Incredible music. So sophisticated. Also, it hasn't dated AT ALL - if this music was invented and broadcast tomorrow it would be instantly recognised as coolly modern, unique and cutting-edge - how does it do that?
And the descending, glittering trill in Atmosphere still gives me tingles
“Opinion polls don’t always provide a precise picture of voters’ mood – and the next general election is still four years away. But Labour strategists will doubtless be poring over the data, and it’s not pretty.
Analysis by the Guardian found Labour’s drop in the opinion polls in its first 10 months of power is the largest of any newly elected UK government in 40 years.”
I think of the 2026 and 2025 locals had been reversed Labour would have had that fourth behind the LDs with YouGov - next year will be apocalyptic for them. It's not impossible they go fourth in Scotland and, at best, they will be Plaids little helpers in Wales and they will likely lose well over 1000 councillors, possibly 1500-2000
Yes, when you drill into the polling the situation for Labour is actually worse than it looks. eg
“Labour is not winning the blame game on the economy – something that it put a lot of emphasis on in its early days of power with the chancellor Rachel Reeves’ claims of a “£22bn hole” of unfunded commitments for 2024.
Among those who view the economy negatively, Ipsos polling shows that the decisions of Starmer and Reeves are seen as the biggest contributing factor (56%) – more significant than the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”
So the whole “blame the Tories, look at the black hole” shtick has already failed, and will, of course, never succeed now. No one is going to think “no, wait, I was wrong - it WAS the Tories”
Given that Labour have no clue what to do on the economy other than sad woke tinkering, this seems terminal. They need a Falklands War AND they need Farage to go away, and even that might not be enough
The Scooby Gang will be peeling off Reeves mask to reveal it was Reeves all along. They are cooked. Actually the establishment is cooked. Where we probably differ is that I'm 100% convinced Farage breaking everyones hearts and hopes will be just as rapid
I’m not sure we differ THAT much. I’m not convinced Farage is the solution either - I AM convinced we’ve tried everything else, so his road is the only option left
I am also convinced that mass immigration and the increasingly desperate attempts by the Establishment to pretend that it is “working” and that “diversity is our strength” is at the root of many of our problems. From low productivity to housing to “two tier justice” to our fraying national identity - the continued importation of millions of people entirely foreign to the UK is making everything worse, fast
This is not the fault of the migrants, who merely and naturally want a better life. It’s the fault of the politicians who have so casually opened our borders
It’s an experiment that has failed, disastrously. It must be ended and remedied. The Danish social democrats have shown you can do this without tearing society apart. A sensible Labour government would copy them. We don’t have a sensible government
So Farage it is
And then what ?
A failed Farage government, aside from all the socioeconomic damage it may cause, could be replaced by a hard left government.
So be it. You Tories had your chance. We gave you 14 fucking years and you rewarded our votes with gross incompetence, venal greed, oafish arrogance and terminal stupidity. Your party must die. Good riddance and bye bye
I'm not a Tory and I had plenty of criticisms over those 14 years.
If Farage was offering competent, patriotic Reform I could happily vote for it.
Instead he's promising magic money tree fantasies, heavily tinged with Trumpist and Putinist sympathies.
Farage may be that or he may not. We’ve never seen him in government so who knows
The fact is the Tories catastrophically failed in their 14 years and now Labour have catastrophically failed in just 10 months
Why should any British voter give them ANOTHER chance? There is no reason for this, it is Einstein’s definition of madness. Given that the Libs are just more-of-the-same that leaves us with Farage
There's a very good reason and that's things are pretty good for many millions of people and a failed Farage government, especially if followed by a hard left government, could easily destroy all that.
The country needs reform and repair.
But, as in a house which needs repair, that requires the competent not cowboys to do the work.
And nothing about Farage's past or promises suggest he could lead a country competently.
If this was remotely true Labour would not be polling 22% (and falling) and the Tories 16% (and falling)
Meanwhile Reform are on 30% (and rising)
There's plenty of disgruntlement with the establishment parties, rightly so in many cases.
That doesn't mean that the non-establishment parties might not do even worse in government.
Nor does it mean that there aren't many millions of people who should be grateful for what they have but are still endlessly whining that they deserve more.
This is far beyond “disgruntlement”. Read the room
Or look across the west. Britain is not alone. The populist/nationalist right is surging everywhere because an entire ideology - mass immigration plus multiculturalism - has failed
You're still babbling about causes without any thought about consequences.
You view a Farage government, and doubtless Le Pen and AfD governments, as the end result, end of the story and happily ever after.
Its not, it would be the beginning. That is when the hard work would start and the difficult decisions have to be taken.
And I don't see any evidence that Farage's rabble of malcontents have the ideas, honesty or competence to reform anything.
I am also aware that I have much to lose from a failed Farage government, especially if followed by a hard left government.
So do many millions of others, even if they're not aware of it now they would soon be with an actual Farage government.
Indeed. There were reasons for thinking that voting Labour in 2024 would deliver a decent degree of competence, leadership and long term planning with excellent communication as to the way this would be progressed, and an acceptable degree of honesty and transparency. I don't think so far this has occurred, and polls suggest something similar.
There is, SFAICS, zero prospect of Reform being either honest ot competent. Their most recent set of policies is sheer fantasy, and there is no prospect of their high command having a secret store of real sane policies they are keeping under wraps. At this stage they are simply engaging in supporting anything and everything to get disgruntled voters' support.
Which altogether is why, I think, the LDs are quietly doing well in the polls. Fairly untainted, not given to total fantasy. No other party can now claim that garland.
That’s the Lib Dems that literally wanted to Revoke the Brexit vote? They didn’t even want a 2nd vote - they just wanted to simply cancel the biggest vote in British history and tell 17 million people “you’re too stupid to vote, so from now on we’re just going to ignore you whenever we like. Vote for us!”
If anything is fantasy politics it is that. It was a fantastically stupid idea which would have destroyed British democracy overnight and probably caused civil disorder
Fuck the Lib Dems. They are the most ridiculous of ALL the parties
Rejoining without a referendum was in the LibDem manifesto. Had the LibDems got a majority (unlikely I know) that would have given them the mandate. That's how the UK political system works.
No. It’s not. In Britain if we have a massive referendum and the government explicitly says “we will honour your vote. This is your choice” then we honour the vote. That’s democracy
The Lib Dem position - cancel votes we don’t like - was simultaneously disgusting and very dangerous
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
But why? Why would governments and companies want to remove "hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes"? What possible motive is there?
Could be in fact that you're simply searching for* reasons to support your climate-change scepticism?
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
But why? Why would governments and companies want to remove "hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes"? What possible motive is there?
Could be in fact that you're simply searching for* reasons to support your climate-change scepticism?
(*Aka 'making up')
Imagine if we determined that increasing GDP by 100% by 2035 was imperative for national survival. Would the best way to achieve it be to implement a mandatory GDP target or would that create the wrong incentives?
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase - certainly that is what's happening in our epoch. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
But why?
Why would governments and companies want to remove "hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes"? What possible motive is there?
Could be in fact that you're simply searching for reasons to support your climate-change scepticism?
You may as well ask why the Acts of Enclosure happened in the way they did.
Because it's profitable, and cements some peoples' power and privilege I suppose.
I have just seen Mission Impossible, a film about a malignant force that distorts reality, destroying objective truth.
Meanwhile in what we think of as the real world, generative AI systems hallucinate ideas and present them as facts that some people are unable to distinguish from objective truth.
In the climax of Andor, Senator Mothma gives a speech in which she laments the extent of propaganda; "The difference between what we are told and objective truth has become a chasm"
Back in the real world, the US President is losing whatever grip he had on objective reality. He think photoshopped images are real. He believes conspiracy theories and junk science. He complains that Biden didn't actually sign bills, while he himself signs things he hasn't read and doesn't understand.
Amidst all of this, on the darkest, dumbest timeline, the Tories grand plan is...
...to bring back BoZo !
A fabricator of alternative facts so prolific he couldn't lie straight in bed
(If you google couldn't lie straight, the top answer gives as an example "Boris Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed.")
reports today from within Labour that the 'fiscal rules' are going in the budget in the Autumn. I'm no fan of them but Reeves surely realises the fig leaf of following them religiously is the only thing stopping the markets going Truss on her?
This is not the only set of fiscal rules the markets will accept! If she goes Truss like she will get a Truss like response. If she makes a proper case for investment, the markets will be fine.
We simply cannot afford to keep borrowing £12bn a month whatever framework we operate. And assuming that the market is going to be relaxed about that increasing by some slightly more lax rules to give our politicians "headroom" is far more dangerous than we are willing to admit. We are teetering on the brink of a genuine crisis here and none of our political class are willing to admit it because they are all culpable.
We are, just as other nations are too including the US.
Smoking in the dynamite room was how one commentator I saw put it.
The problem is too many people want free money, free stuff, and we have a political class who ‘didn’t come into politics to cut benefits/wfa/make difficult decisions’ who just want to be liked and do nice things.
People think the solution is higher taxes, but they really just want taxes on others. This is why people favour a so-called wealth tax.
We already have a roll back on WFA. We will probably get one on the so called PIP cuts, which really sees the growing spend slow a little from 33 billion this parliament to 26 billion, and there is always pressure from lobbyists on the 2 child benefits ‘cap’.
We need a govt prepared to tackle tough issues. We’ve got one that caves to the slightest pressure and kicks difficult decisions down the road and the deputy is shit stirring as she wants the top job.
“Opinion polls don’t always provide a precise picture of voters’ mood – and the next general election is still four years away. But Labour strategists will doubtless be poring over the data, and it’s not pretty.
Analysis by the Guardian found Labour’s drop in the opinion polls in its first 10 months of power is the largest of any newly elected UK government in 40 years.”
I think of the 2026 and 2025 locals had been reversed Labour would have had that fourth behind the LDs with YouGov - next year will be apocalyptic for them. It's not impossible they go fourth in Scotland and, at best, they will be Plaids little helpers in Wales and they will likely lose well over 1000 councillors, possibly 1500-2000
Yes, when you drill into the polling the situation for Labour is actually worse than it looks. eg
“Labour is not winning the blame game on the economy – something that it put a lot of emphasis on in its early days of power with the chancellor Rachel Reeves’ claims of a “£22bn hole” of unfunded commitments for 2024.
Among those who view the economy negatively, Ipsos polling shows that the decisions of Starmer and Reeves are seen as the biggest contributing factor (56%) – more significant than the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”
So the whole “blame the Tories, look at the black hole” shtick has already failed, and will, of course, never succeed now. No one is going to think “no, wait, I was wrong - it WAS the Tories”
Given that Labour have no clue what to do on the economy other than sad woke tinkering, this seems terminal. They need a Falklands War AND they need Farage to go away, and even that might not be enough
The Scooby Gang will be peeling off Reeves mask to reveal it was Reeves all along. They are cooked. Actually the establishment is cooked. Where we probably differ is that I'm 100% convinced Farage breaking everyones hearts and hopes will be just as rapid
I’m not sure we differ THAT much. I’m not convinced Farage is the solution either - I AM convinced we’ve tried everything else, so his road is the only option left
I am also convinced that mass immigration and the increasingly desperate attempts by the Establishment to pretend that it is “working” and that “diversity is our strength” is at the root of many of our problems. From low productivity to housing to “two tier justice” to our fraying national identity - the continued importation of millions of people entirely foreign to the UK is making everything worse, fast
This is not the fault of the migrants, who merely and naturally want a better life. It’s the fault of the politicians who have so casually opened our borders
It’s an experiment that has failed, disastrously. It must be ended and remedied. The Danish social democrats have shown you can do this without tearing society apart. A sensible Labour government would copy them. We don’t have a sensible government
So Farage it is
And then what ?
A failed Farage government, aside from all the socioeconomic damage it may cause, could be replaced by a hard left government.
So be it. You Tories had your chance. We gave you 14 fucking years and you rewarded our votes with gross incompetence, venal greed, oafish arrogance and terminal stupidity. Your party must die. Good riddance and bye bye
I'm not a Tory and I had plenty of criticisms over those 14 years.
If Farage was offering competent, patriotic Reform I could happily vote for it.
Instead he's promising magic money tree fantasies, heavily tinged with Trumpist and Putinist sympathies.
Farage may be that or he may not. We’ve never seen him in government so who knows
The fact is the Tories catastrophically failed in their 14 years and now Labour have catastrophically failed in just 10 months
Why should any British voter give them ANOTHER chance? There is no reason for this, it is Einstein’s definition of madness. Given that the Libs are just more-of-the-same that leaves us with Farage
There's a very good reason and that's things are pretty good for many millions of people and a failed Farage government, especially if followed by a hard left government, could easily destroy all that.
The country needs reform and repair.
But, as in a house which needs repair, that requires the competent not cowboys to do the work.
And nothing about Farage's past or promises suggest he could lead a country competently.
If this was remotely true Labour would not be polling 22% (and falling) and the Tories 16% (and falling)
Meanwhile Reform are on 30% (and rising)
There's plenty of disgruntlement with the establishment parties, rightly so in many cases.
That doesn't mean that the non-establishment parties might not do even worse in government.
Nor does it mean that there aren't many millions of people who should be grateful for what they have but are still endlessly whining that they deserve more.
This is far beyond “disgruntlement”. Read the room
Or look across the west. Britain is not alone. The populist/nationalist right is surging everywhere because an entire ideology - mass immigration plus multiculturalism - has failed
You're still babbling about causes without any thought about consequences.
You view a Farage government, and doubtless Le Pen and AfD governments, as the end result, end of the story and happily ever after.
Its not, it would be the beginning. That is when the hard work would start and the difficult decisions have to be taken.
And I don't see any evidence that Farage's rabble of malcontents have the ideas, honesty or competence to reform anything.
I am also aware that I have much to lose from a failed Farage government, especially if followed by a hard left government.
So do many millions of others, even if they're not aware of it now they would soon be with an actual Farage government.
Indeed. There were reasons for thinking that voting Labour in 2024 would deliver a decent degree of competence, leadership and long term planning with excellent communication as to the way this would be progressed, and an acceptable degree of honesty and transparency. I don't think so far this has occurred, and polls suggest something similar.
There is, SFAICS, zero prospect of Reform being either honest ot competent. Their most recent set of policies is sheer fantasy, and there is no prospect of their high command having a secret store of real sane policies they are keeping under wraps. At this stage they are simply engaging in supporting anything and everything to get disgruntled voters' support.
Which altogether is why, I think, the LDs are quietly doing well in the polls. Fairly untainted, not given to total fantasy. No other party can now claim that garland.
That’s the Lib Dems that literally wanted to Revoke the Brexit vote? They didn’t even want a 2nd vote - they just wanted to simply cancel the biggest vote in British history and tell 17 million people “you’re too stupid to vote, so from now on we’re just going to ignore you whenever we like. Vote for us!”
If anything is fantasy politics it is that. It was a fantastically stupid idea which would have destroyed British democracy overnight and probably caused civil disorder
Fuck the Lib Dems. They are the most ridiculous of ALL the parties
Rejoining without a referendum was in the LibDem manifesto. Had the LibDems got a majority (unlikely I know) that would have given them the mandate. That's how the UK political system works.
No. It’s not. In Britain if we have a massive referendum and the government explicitly says “we will honour your vote. This is your choice” then we honour the vote. That’s democracy
The Lib Dem position - cancel votes we don’t like - was simultaneously disgusting and very dangerous
In 1975, in a massive referendum, 67% voted to stay in the EU. Was it disgusting an dangerous to overturn it in 2016? Referenda results don't last forever. We have a vote every four or five years to choose our government. These votes don't last forever. That wouldn't be democracy.
Much like polling whose numbers one likes is the good, trustworthy kind, referendums with the outcomes one desired should be conclusive for evah and a day.
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
But why?
Why would governments and companies want to remove "hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes"? What possible motive is there?
Could be in fact that you're simply searching for reasons to support your climate-change scepticism?
You may as well ask why the Acts of Enclosure happened in the way they did.
Because it's profitable, and cements some peoples' power and privilege I suppose.
The difficulty is that the "proponents of X are always in it for personal gain" is always true of everyone. To an extent. So it's just as true of companies currently making decent profits from the hydrocarbon business wanting to minimise or deflect the effect of burning stuff on the climate.
In the meantime, Svante Arrhenius's model (which is over a century old, and back-of-an-envelope crude) is playing out pretty well.
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
But why?
Why would governments and companies want to remove "hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes"? What possible motive is there?
Could be in fact that you're simply searching for reasons to support your climate-change scepticism?
You may as well ask why the Acts of Enclosure happened in the way they did.
Because it's profitable, and cements some peoples' power and privilege I suppose.
No comparison; terrible analogy.
It was blindingly obvious that the Acts of Enclosure were going to help privileged landowners.
It is not blindingly obvious how restricting the speed people can drive generates profits for anyone - thought it does make our roads safer of course.
It is not blindingly obvious how the move to renewables generates profits for established businesses in say petrochemicals, automotive, aviation, etc. unless they are willing to adapt. If you wanted to protect the profits and privileges of these companies you'd need to squash the climate-change response.
And unsurprisingly many tried to do that, aided by useful climate-change denying idiots. Inconveniently, the climate did not play ball nor did reputable scientists, and in fairness, most respectable politicians listened, as did the great mass of the public.
“Last week Mauritius signed a partnership with Russia covering fisheries and marine research.
They pledged to “deepen collaboration” and “reaffirmed their commitment to advancing cooperation in agriculture, research, irrigation, and fisheries, and building on a longstanding partnership.””
Gee, look at that timing. Those pristine waters will now be plundered by Russian and Chinese ships
I struggle to find a word for this deal that doesn’t involve the concept of “treason”
How were scotland's fishing fleets supposed to make use of the pristine waters around Chagos?
I doubt Russia will be sending its arctic fleet to Chagos anytime soon. It’s probably sharing of R&D.
The Mauritians have been very good at playing the global entrepôt game - positioning as the gateway to Africa for Middle Eastern investors, a tax-efficient vehicle for Indian inbound and outbound FDI, an infrastructure target for China, all the while making big efforts to institute anti-corruption, transparency and governance structures to get itself off the EU’s black list of uncooperative tax havens. They also have the Swiss-style approach to dictators and dictatorships: none of our business, we want to be everyone’s friend.
The threat to the MPA is genuine, I think, based on the thoughts of those in environmental circles. But it's a classic case of people with no history of concern about a "woke" issue suddenly becoming deeply invested in it because it suits their political agenda. How often as Leon complained about trawling in the North Sea?
The MPA also had an ulterior motive of keeping the Chagossians out, as revealed in some FCO leaks. It's not as though the UK Government was suddenly overcome with environmental concern - but it should be, because it (was) our single most important ecological asset.
This is bollocks. I’m quite earnestly ‘green’
See my many cries of despair at the ruination of the planet on my travels. See my disputes with @BartholomewRoberts when he wants to concrete over the country for identikit estates
It’s one of my big beefs with the Carswell plan I linked below. He’s happy to let rip and develop the Green Belt. I am definitely NOT
You have me only partially correct.
My preference is to enable developments to be unique by reforming planning to remove the oligopoly of developers grip over developments and so then developments would not be identikit. Identikit only happens because an oligopoly controls all construction thanks to our broken planning system that blocks anyone else from developing anything.
However we have a chronic housing shortage, so if the choice is an identikit development or no development at all, then the identikit one is the lesser of two evils.
My preference though is to go back to the pre-socialism 1930s planning regime that enabled developments and good construction of beautiful homes, rather than preventing developments altogether then only allowing identikit ones through.
I know you admire old buildings from previous centuries. We should go back to the planning regime that existed when they were built.
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase - certainly that is what's happening in our epoch. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
Interesting post. Will annoy a lot of people.
Not really. After reading the crap in the first sentence I felt no need to continue.
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
But why? Why would governments and companies want to remove "hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes"? What possible motive is there?
Could be in fact that you're simply searching for* reasons to support your climate-change scepticism?
(*Aka 'making up')
Imagine if we determined that increasing GDP by 100% by 2035 was imperative for national survival. Would the best way to achieve it be to implement a mandatory GDP target or would that create the wrong incentives?
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase - certainly that is what's happening in our epoch. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
Interesting post. Will annoy a lot of people.
Not really. After reading the crap in the first sentence I felt no need to continue.
You should have pressed on to the second sentence, that's an evidence-free corker!
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase - certainly that is what's happening in our epoch. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
Interesting post. Will annoy a lot of people.
Not really. After reading the crap in the first sentence I felt no need to continue.
You should have pressed on to the second sentence, that's an evidence-free corker!
Thanks for the tip. Just gave me reason to chuckle.
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
But why?
Why would governments and companies want to remove "hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes"? What possible motive is there?
Could be in fact that you're simply searching for reasons to support your climate-change scepticism?
You may as well ask why the Acts of Enclosure happened in the way they did.
Because it's profitable, and cements some peoples' power and privilege I suppose.
No comparison; terrible analogy.
It was blindingly obvious that the Acts of Enclosure were going to help privileged landowners.
It is not blindingly obvious how restricting the speed people can drive generates profits for anyone - thought it does make our roads safer of course.
It is not blindingly obvious how the move to renewables generates profits for established businesses in say petrochemicals, automotive, aviation, etc. unless they are willing to adapt. If you wanted to protect the profits and privileges of these companies you'd need to squash the climate-change response.
And unsurprisingly many tried to do that, aided by useful climate-change denying idiots. Inconveniently, the climate did not play ball nor did reputable scientists, and in fairness, most respectable politicians listened, as did the great mass of the public.
“Last week Mauritius signed a partnership with Russia covering fisheries and marine research.
They pledged to “deepen collaboration” and “reaffirmed their commitment to advancing cooperation in agriculture, research, irrigation, and fisheries, and building on a longstanding partnership.””
Gee, look at that timing. Those pristine waters will now be plundered by Russian and Chinese ships
I struggle to find a word for this deal that doesn’t involve the concept of “treason”
How were scotland's fishing fleets supposed to make use of the pristine waters around Chagos?
I doubt Russia will be sending its arctic fleet to Chagos anytime soon. It’s probably sharing of R&D.
The Mauritians have been very good at playing the global entrepôt game - positioning as the gateway to Africa for Middle Eastern investors, a tax-efficient vehicle for Indian inbound and outbound FDI, an infrastructure target for China, all the while making big efforts to institute anti-corruption, transparency and governance structures to get itself off the EU’s black list of uncooperative tax havens. They also have the Swiss-style approach to dictators and dictatorships: none of our business, we want to be everyone’s friend.
The threat to the MPA is genuine, I think, based on the thoughts of those in environmental circles. But it's a classic case of people with no history of concern about a "woke" issue suddenly becoming deeply invested in it because it suits their political agenda. How often as Leon complained about trawling in the North Sea?
The MPA also had an ulterior motive of keeping the Chagossians out, as revealed in some FCO leaks. It's not as though the UK Government was suddenly overcome with environmental concern - but it should be, because it (was) our single most important ecological asset.
This is bollocks. I’m quite earnestly ‘green’
See my many cries of despair at the ruination of the planet on my travels. See my disputes with @BartholomewRoberts when he wants to concrete over the country for identikit estates
It’s one of my big beefs with the Carswell plan I linked below. He’s happy to let rip and develop the Green Belt. I am definitely NOT
You have me only partially correct.
My preference is to enable developments to be unique by reforming planning to remove the oligopoly of developers grip over developments and so then developments would not be identikit. Identikit only happens because an oligopoly controls all construction thanks to our broken planning system that blocks anyone else from developing anything.
However we have a chronic housing shortage, so if the choice is an identikit development or no development at all, then the identikit one is the lesser of two evils.
My preference though is to go back to the pre-socialism 1930s planning regime that enabled developments and good construction of beautiful homes, rather than preventing developments altogether then only allowing identikit ones through.
I know you admire old buildings from previous centuries. We should go back to the planning regime that existed when they were built.
Ah, that's fair enough. And I apologise for misrepresenting you
I was merely using our debates to illustrate my point that I really DO care about the environment. It's a massive issue for me. Remember when I went into a meltdown over the Faroese killing all the pilot whales?!
For a baby-eating rightwinger I am very sentimental - and sometimes angry - about the way we treat our beautiful planet. I travel to explore places and it makes me nauseous, sometimes, to see how casually we trash everything. So, yeah, I do care about the seas of the Chagos being plundered all to make Keir Starmer and his fucking evil lawyer friends feel morally good about "decolonisation". Wankers. I hate them
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase - certainly that is what's happening in our epoch. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
Interesting post. Will annoy a lot of people.
Not really. After reading the crap in the first sentence I felt no need to continue.
You should have pressed on to the second sentence, that's an evidence-free corker!
Thanks for the tip. Just gave me reason to chuckle.
I myself am going to ponder whether the rising sun brings daylight. Could it perhaps be that the daylight brings up the sun?
The daylight appears before the sun after all.
Yes, I find it more likely that the correlation daylight and the sun rising that we observe is because the daylight causes the sun to rise, not because the rising sun causes daylight. It seems natural to me that as the daylight appears, the sun decides to get up.
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
But why? Why would governments and companies want to remove "hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes"? What possible motive is there?
Could be in fact that you're simply searching for* reasons to support your climate-change scepticism?
(*Aka 'making up')
Politicians have a tendency to be authoritarian and want power, which is why too many want to remove hard won freedoms. They also want money to spend on their priorities, hence taxes.
Many people do too. A lot of people have a dislike to others doing things they disapprove of and are quite happy to see rights taken away.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Now having said that the way to fight those who wish to abuse climate concerns to further their agenda, watermelon greens as I call them, which is a group which definitely exists, is not to deny climate change. It is to decouple concerns about the climate from their agenda. Embracing clean technologies and clean power means we can have as much consumption as we want, without damaging the environment.
If we can have a grid powered by renewables and batteries etc then there is no need to cut consumption and the watermelon greens lose the ability to abuse the environment to further their agenda.
I'll make a few comments separately on the medicals. Small pleasures, certainly, apply.
Yesterday I had my first mini road trip for some time, when I went to see a friend in Oldham just diagnosed with cancer. I can confirm Oldham taxi drivers do not like people in front of them stopping at the exit of a medium sized traffic island to let the pedestrians cross, as the Highway Code requires. They have enough green space that they see deer out of their house back windows.
On the way I was in Sheffield visiting my godmother, who is 90 next year, and demanded that I turn up with fish and chips from her favourite shop, and a Saturday Telegraph. Her entire extended family went to London on a coach to Wembley for Sheffield Utd vs Sunderland, starting at 7:30am, and one lot had some from Doncaster to catch the coach. I have not spoken to her since Sheffield were defeated.
I also turned up with chocolates from a beautiful handmade homemade chocolate shop in Cromford, near Matlock, called Taylor-Wilde. It's distinctive because they make about 40 different chocolates; "One of everything, twice", was surprisingly economical. There is also usually a Triking 3 wheeler (like a Morgan 3 wheeler, but properly engineered), and a 1952 MG TD parked outside, and a famous rabbit-warren bookshop called Scarthins across the road with a cafe buried in the books (12 rooms, 3 floors, 100k books), and an early industrial canal to walk along.
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase - certainly that is what's happening in our epoch. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
Interesting post. Will annoy a lot of people.
Not really. After reading the crap in the first sentence I felt no need to continue.
You should have pressed on to the second sentence, that's an evidence-free corker!
It's actually quite an interesting one, because some of the models suggest that's what will happen as the oceans get warmer (from vague memory). The same logic applies to shrinking ice caps as we lose their reflective power. I can see how you can pervert causation though, and I guess we'll see more of the same posted all over twitter and Facebook by bots.
Ultimately, LGs post is an eloquent conspiracy theory. I have much more time for people who question whether we're getting the balance right on reducing carbon emissions, the perversion of offloading them to China etc etc, but this is proper tinfoil stuff and links into the anti-vaxxer, 5G, 15-minute city, WEF ecosystem.
I have always been rather against taxing the rich just because some of them are a bit disgusting and obnoxious but I am starting to change my mind.
I know some people with that sort of income, who quietly bring up their children, don't complain, don't talk about money and how poor they are, have lots of middle income friends, are interested in the welfare of not well off people, give lots of money away and think they are very fortunate.
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
But why? Why would governments and companies want to remove "hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes"? What possible motive is there?
Could be in fact that you're simply searching for* reasons to support your climate-change scepticism?
(*Aka 'making up')
Politicians have a tendency to be authoritarian and want power, which is why too many want to remove hard won freedoms. They also want money to spend on their priorities, hence taxes.
Many people do too. A lot of people have a dislike to others doing things they disapprove of and are quite happy to see rights taken away.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Now having said that the way to fight those who wish to abuse climate concerns to further their agenda, watermelon greens as I call them, which is a group which definitely exists, is not to deny climate change. It is to decouple concerns about the climate from their agenda. Embracing clean technologies and clean power means we can have as much consumption as we want, without damaging the environment.
If we can have a grid powered by renewables and batteries etc then there is no need to cut consumption and the watermelon greens lose the ability to abuse the environment to further their agenda.
Except that eg building far fewer windmills and battery parks throughout the country is a huge benefit in a smallish country, so using as little power as we need and being highly efficient is positive. I'm on with a mixture of renewables and mainly SMR backup.
I have always been rather against taxing the rich just because some of them are a bit disgusting and obnoxious but I am starting to change my mind.
I know some people with that sort of income, who quietly bring up their children, don't complain, don't talk about money and how poor they are, have lots of middle income friends, are interested in the welfare of not well off people, give lots of money away and think they are very fortunate.
The Telegraph article is just rage bait, no different to Sun articles about single moms getting 4 grand a month, or whatever, and moaning it isn’t enough.
I listened to a Bloomberg podcast this week that claimed the top 1% of all earners paid 29% of all taxes and over the last 40 years lower earners have paid proportionally less.
I’m not quite sure how much tax we expect people to pay. The well off clearly pay taxes and a lot of them.
Have the Fukkers peaked too early? Four years is a long time and they won't be able to campaign on insurgency because they may have some record as incumbents which will have to be defended by then.
That I think is valid; I see them taking another swathe next year amongst Districts - though some may be delayed, and we may be mainly unitaries by 2028.
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase - certainly that is what's happening in our epoch. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
Interesting post. Will annoy a lot of people.
Not really. After reading the crap in the first sentence I felt no need to continue.
Luckyguy is a true Trumpian; he knows better than all of the specialists in the field.
Reform's impact in this part of East London notwithstanding, the "all things to all people" approach will only get them so far. They are currently the recepticle of anger, dillusionment, frustration and exhaustion but also hope inasmuch as some who support Farage believe he is the answer.
I'd suggest if they think that they've not worked out the question.
The first nonsense is to describe Reform as a "hard right" party - they aren't. Culturally conservative, nationalist and anti-immigrant, yes but on spending they are as far up the Magic Money Tree as Jeremy Corbyn.
The problem is fiscal rectitude doesn't sell - saying "we can't go on as we are" is fine until you actually have to do something about it (ask any addict). Carswell plays the same old tune of tax and public spending cuts but the truth, we all know, is tax rises (substantial) AND spending cuts (once you've worked out what you can't cut).
Carswell is probably right in saying the relationship between State and citizen needs to be redefined but it can't solely be on the basis of less of the former though there's a point about personal responsibility which often gets forgotten.
If they can reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, I suspect all else will be forgiven. That is the main reason people are supporting them after all.
No, it probably isn't. Primarily, Reform is NOTA. The country is going to the dogs and my life with it. To the extent immigration is a factor, the problem is not its current rate so much as what has already happened, so even a marked reduction will not change many votes.
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
But why? Why would governments and companies want to remove "hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes"? What possible motive is there?
Could be in fact that you're simply searching for* reasons to support your climate-change scepticism?
(*Aka 'making up')
Politicians have a tendency to be authoritarian and want power, which is why too many want to remove hard won freedoms. They also want money to spend on their priorities, hence taxes.
Many people do too. A lot of people have a dislike to others doing things they disapprove of and are quite happy to see rights taken away.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Now having said that the way to fight those who wish to abuse climate concerns to further their agenda, watermelon greens as I call them, which is a group which definitely exists, is not to deny climate change. It is to decouple concerns about the climate from their agenda. Embracing clean technologies and clean power means we can have as much consumption as we want, without damaging the environment.
If we can have a grid powered by renewables and batteries etc then there is no need to cut consumption and the watermelon greens lose the ability to abuse the environment to further their agenda.
Except that eg building far fewer windmills and battery parks throughout the country is a huge benefit in a smallish country, so using as little power as we need and being highly efficient is positive. I'm on with a mixture of renewables and mainly SMR backup.
Well you're standing with Luckyguy in opposition to windmills and batteries then.
I don't consider building less of anything is of any benefit, we have plenty of space, and the overwhelming majority of the country is undeveloped - windmills and batteries don't take much space either.
Take Runcorn and Widnes as an example, in the not very distant past if I used to drive back to Merseyside to visit my family I would get my car covered in soot from Fiddlers Ferry Power Station, which can't be too healthy for the people living there either.
Now the power station is decommissioned as we don't need the coal power anymore and instead if you drive down the M56 you're greeted with the sight of many windmills providing the power instead.
Those windmills are a lot more beautiful in my eyes than Fiddlers Ferry ever was and don't cover everything in soot.
Saving energy where it isn't a sacrifice, eg using efficient bulbs, is only sensible. But would I rather sacrifice by not using power, rely upon soot-based power, or rely upon windmills and batteries? Easily the latter. Especially given the latter is increasingly considerably cheaper too.
I have always been rather against taxing the rich just because some of them are a bit disgusting and obnoxious but I am starting to change my mind.
I know some people with that sort of income, who quietly bring up their children, don't complain, don't talk about money and how poor they are, have lots of middle income friends, are interested in the welfare of not well off people, give lots of money away and think they are very fortunate.
The Telegraph article is just rage bait, no different to Sun articles about single moms getting 4 grand a month, or whatever, and moaning it isn’t enough.
I listened to a Bloomberg podcast this week that claimed the top 1% of all earners paid 29% of all taxes and over the last 40 years lower earners have paid proportionally less.
I’m not quite sure how much tax we expect people to pay. The well off clearly pay taxes and a lot of them.
But that buys into the narrative that they earn their money through their own skills and hard work alone.
Clearly most of the 1% wouldn't be earning anything like as much without all the work the rest of the population does. If they're paying much more tax proportionally, and yet, still appear to be getting wealthier, then it's a sign of a broken system, not of them paying too much tax.
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
But why? Why would governments and companies want to remove "hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes"? What possible motive is there?
Could be in fact that you're simply searching for* reasons to support your climate-change scepticism?
(*Aka 'making up')
Imagine if we determined that increasing GDP by 100% by 2035 was imperative for national survival. Would the best way to achieve it be to implement a mandatory GDP target or would that create the wrong incentives?
I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
The point is that someone who thought that a mandatory GDP target was a wrongheaded idea wouldn't be "anti-growth" and the same applies to scepticism about climate targets.
Extreme power over-generation today. Exporting everything we can via interconnectors, stocking up dinorwig and still a negative price per mwh of -£4.60.
This is where we need way more batteries, and that new 30gwh pumped storage facility in Scotland will help.
Wind 16.45gw, Solar 8.70gw. An all time point record.
Pretty much perfect conditions today- breezy but not crazily so, plenty of clear skies and about a month from the solstice. And there is the gradual steady increase in areas of solar panels and numbers of wind turbines.
The next bit- which is going to be genuinely interesting to watch- is when there is enough "please, take it off us" electricity on enough days for a business ecosystem to grow around it. I suspect we're getting close, which is why domestic batteries are becoming popular, but not quite there yet.
EDF have given us, for the third Sunday in a row, free electricity from 8.00am to midnight because, wait for it, we have a smart meter. !!!!
Wonderful news - I believe you missed my question about whether this generous act had driven your energy expenditure down below pre-crisis levels, so I'll give you another chance to answer it now.
Free energy is fine. A square metre of ground gets about a KW in full sun.
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
I believe the effect of man-made Co2 on warming to be exaggerated. I find it more likely that the correlation between Co2 and warm periods that we observe from the past is because the warming causes the Co2, not because the Co2 causes the warming. It seems natural to me that as the planet warms, surface activity grows, and emissions increase. I'm happy to debate it further (as we do), but it's far too much for a single post.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
But why? Why would governments and companies want to remove "hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes"? What possible motive is there?
Could be in fact that you're simply searching for* reasons to support your climate-change scepticism?
(*Aka 'making up')
Politicians have a tendency to be authoritarian and want power, which is why too many want to remove hard won freedoms. They also want money to spend on their priorities, hence taxes.
Many people do too. A lot of people have a dislike to others doing things they disapprove of and are quite happy to see rights taken away.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Now having said that the way to fight those who wish to abuse climate concerns to further their agenda, watermelon greens as I call them, which is a group which definitely exists, is not to deny climate change. It is to decouple concerns about the climate from their agenda. Embracing clean technologies and clean power means we can have as much consumption as we want, without damaging the environment.
If we can have a grid powered by renewables and batteries etc then there is no need to cut consumption and the watermelon greens lose the ability to abuse the environment to further their agenda.
Except that eg building far fewer windmills and battery parks throughout the country is a huge benefit in a smallish country, so using as little power as we need and being highly efficient is positive. I'm on with a mixture of renewables and mainly SMR backup.
Well you're standing with Luckyguy in opposition to windmills and batteries then.
I don't consider building less of anything is of any benefit, we have plenty of space, and the overwhelming majority of the country is undeveloped - windmills and batteries don't take much space either.
Take Runcorn and Widnes as an example, in the not very distant past if I used to drive back to Merseyside to visit my family I would get my car covered in soot from Fiddlers Ferry Power Station, which can't be too healthy for the people living there either.
Now the power station is decommissioned as we don't need the coal power anymore and instead if you drive down the M56 you're greeted with the sight of many windmills providing the power instead.
Those windmills are a lot more beautiful in my eyes than Fiddlers Ferry ever was and don't cover everything in soot.
Saving energy where it isn't a sacrifice, eg using efficient bulbs, is only sensible. But would I rather sacrifice by not using power, rely upon soot-based power, or rely upon windmills and batteries? Easily the latter. Especially given the latter is increasingly considerably cheaper too.
I have always been rather against taxing the rich just because some of them are a bit disgusting and obnoxious but I am starting to change my mind.
I know some people with that sort of income, who quietly bring up their children, don't complain, don't talk about money and how poor they are, have lots of middle income friends, are interested in the welfare of not well off people, give lots of money away and think they are very fortunate.
The Telegraph article is just rage bait, no different to Sun articles about single moms getting 4 grand a month, or whatever, and moaning it isn’t enough.
I listened to a Bloomberg podcast this week that claimed the top 1% of all earners paid 29% of all taxes and over the last 40 years lower earners have paid proportionally less.
I’m not quite sure how much tax we expect people to pay. The well off clearly pay taxes and a lot of them.
But that buys into the narrative that they earn their money through their own skills and hard work alone.
Clearly most of the 1% wouldn't be earning anything like as much without all the work the rest of the population does. If they're paying much more tax proportionally, and yet, still appear to be getting wealthier, then it's a sign of a broken system, not of them paying too much tax.
If they're paying more tax, getting wealthier, while everyone else gets wealthier too, then there's nothing broken about that.
If some are getting wealthier while others aren't, despite economic growth, then that's a problem.
I have always been rather against taxing the rich just because some of them are a bit disgusting and obnoxious but I am starting to change my mind.
I know some people with that sort of income, who quietly bring up their children, don't complain, don't talk about money and how poor they are, have lots of middle income friends, are interested in the welfare of not well off people, give lots of money away and think they are very fortunate.
The Telegraph article is just rage bait, no different to Sun articles about single moms getting 4 grand a month, or whatever, and moaning it isn’t enough.
I listened to a Bloomberg podcast this week that claimed the top 1% of all earners paid 29% of all taxes and over the last 40 years lower earners have paid proportionally less.
I’m not quite sure how much tax we expect people to pay. The well off clearly pay taxes and a lot of them.
But that buys into the narrative that they earn their money through their own skills and hard work alone.
Clearly most of the 1% wouldn't be earning anything like as much without all the work the rest of the population does. If they're paying much more tax proportionally, and yet, still appear to be getting wealthier, then it's a sign of a broken system, not of them paying too much tax.
Yes. It's a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw that if 1% of the people are paying 29% of the taxes then the contribution of a large % of the population is massively undervalued.
I have always been rather against taxing the rich just because some of them are a bit disgusting and obnoxious but I am starting to change my mind.
I know some people with that sort of income, who quietly bring up their children, don't complain, don't talk about money and how poor they are, have lots of middle income friends, are interested in the welfare of not well off people, give lots of money away and think they are very fortunate.
The Telegraph article is just rage bait, no different to Sun articles about single moms getting 4 grand a month, or whatever, and moaning it isn’t enough.
I listened to a Bloomberg podcast this week that claimed the top 1% of all earners paid 29% of all taxes and over the last 40 years lower earners have paid proportionally less.
I’m not quite sure how much tax we expect people to pay. The well off clearly pay taxes and a lot of them.
But that buys into the narrative that they earn their money through their own skills and hard work alone.
Clearly most of the 1% wouldn't be earning anything like as much without all the work the rest of the population does. If they're paying much more tax proportionally, and yet, still appear to be getting wealthier, then it's a sign of a broken system, not of them paying too much tax.
That must be it.
People need to pay more tax to stop them becoming wealthy or growing their wealth.
@MattW re deaf constituents and council livestreams
I posted yesterday that modern browsers can provide live captions or simultaneous subtitles.
Chrome – (three dots menu) > settings > accessibility (on left) > live caption
It seemed to work for a Kent council livestream but then I noticed everyone had an American accent and it turns out there is a Kent over there as well.
Perhaps you can try it. There is no point activists wasting scarce funds on a legal challenge if they will just be told to press a few buttons.
I have always been rather against taxing the rich just because some of them are a bit disgusting and obnoxious but I am starting to change my mind.
I know some people with that sort of income, who quietly bring up their children, don't complain, don't talk about money and how poor they are, have lots of middle income friends, are interested in the welfare of not well off people, give lots of money away and think they are very fortunate.
The Telegraph article is just rage bait, no different to Sun articles about single moms getting 4 grand a month, or whatever, and moaning it isn’t enough.
I listened to a Bloomberg podcast this week that claimed the top 1% of all earners paid 29% of all taxes and over the last 40 years lower earners have paid proportionally less.
I’m not quite sure how much tax we expect people to pay. The well off clearly pay taxes and a lot of them.
But that buys into the narrative that they earn their money through their own skills and hard work alone.
Clearly most of the 1% wouldn't be earning anything like as much without all the work the rest of the population does. If they're paying much more tax proportionally, and yet, still appear to be getting wealthier, then it's a sign of a broken system, not of them paying too much tax.
If they're paying more tax, getting wealthier, while everyone else gets wealthier too, then there's nothing broken about that.
If some are getting wealthier while others aren't, despite economic growth, then that's a problem.
I understand the point, although I still think it's a problem if over time their share of all the wealth grows.
I have always been rather against taxing the rich just because some of them are a bit disgusting and obnoxious but I am starting to change my mind.
I know some people with that sort of income, who quietly bring up their children, don't complain, don't talk about money and how poor they are, have lots of middle income friends, are interested in the welfare of not well off people, give lots of money away and think they are very fortunate.
The Telegraph article is just rage bait, no different to Sun articles about single moms getting 4 grand a month, or whatever, and moaning it isn’t enough.
I listened to a Bloomberg podcast this week that claimed the top 1% of all earners paid 29% of all taxes and over the last 40 years lower earners have paid proportionally less.
I’m not quite sure how much tax we expect people to pay. The well off clearly pay taxes and a lot of them.
But that buys into the narrative that they earn their money through their own skills and hard work alone.
Clearly most of the 1% wouldn't be earning anything like as much without all the work the rest of the population does. If they're paying much more tax proportionally, and yet, still appear to be getting wealthier, then it's a sign of a broken system, not of them paying too much tax.
If they're paying more tax, getting wealthier, while everyone else gets wealthier too, then there's nothing broken about that.
If some are getting wealthier while others aren't, despite economic growth, then that's a problem.
What about relative wealth or income? Depending on how you measure it, almost everyone is better off than we were previously even as inequality has grown. It's human nature to compare yourself to others and therefore resentment can grow even if, in absolute terms, your wellbeing has improved.
@MattW re deaf constituents and council livestreams
I posted yesterday that modern browsers can provide live captions or simultaneous subtitles.
Chrome – (three dots menu) > settings > accessibility (on left) > live caption
It seemed to work for a Kent council livestream but then I noticed everyone had an American accent and it turns out there is a Kent over there as well.
Perhaps you can try it. There is no point activists wasting scarce funds on a legal challenge if they will just be told to press a few buttons.
Here is a live horseracing commentary (with mangled horse names):-
I have always been rather against taxing the rich just because some of them are a bit disgusting and obnoxious but I am starting to change my mind.
I know some people with that sort of income, who quietly bring up their children, don't complain, don't talk about money and how poor they are, have lots of middle income friends, are interested in the welfare of not well off people, give lots of money away and think they are very fortunate.
The Telegraph article is just rage bait, no different to Sun articles about single moms getting 4 grand a month, or whatever, and moaning it isn’t enough.
I listened to a Bloomberg podcast this week that claimed the top 1% of all earners paid 29% of all taxes and over the last 40 years lower earners have paid proportionally less.
I’m not quite sure how much tax we expect people to pay. The well off clearly pay taxes and a lot of them.
But that buys into the narrative that they earn their money through their own skills and hard work alone.
Clearly most of the 1% wouldn't be earning anything like as much without all the work the rest of the population does. If they're paying much more tax proportionally, and yet, still appear to be getting wealthier, then it's a sign of a broken system, not of them paying too much tax.
That must be it.
People need to pay more tax to stop them becoming wealthy or growing their wealth.
A most aspirational approach.
I'm pretty sure most of us can be aspirational without the carrot of earning more money that we could ever spend.
How about all the very rich people who live only off investments? Or the ones who earn enough money and then tap out of the rat race? Perhaps a true aspirational approach would allow more people to earn more money, and in turn they can generate more money for the economy.
Edit: Hope they show some of the old Imagine films again - especially the Dave Gilmour one.
Every time I saw his name I thought "Yentob is Botney spelt backwards". Completely pointless & uninteresting, it's not as though "Botney" is even a word. But think of it every time I did
Edit: Hope they show some of the old Imagine films again - especially the Dave Gilmour one.
Every time I saw his name I thought "Yentob is Botney spelt backwards". Completely pointless & uninteresting, it's not as though "Botney" is even a word. But think of it every time I did
Wasn’t that Private Eye’s name for him? I admit I do the same.
I have always been rather against taxing the rich just because some of them are a bit disgusting and obnoxious but I am starting to change my mind.
I know some people with that sort of income, who quietly bring up their children, don't complain, don't talk about money and how poor they are, have lots of middle income friends, are interested in the welfare of not well off people, give lots of money away and think they are very fortunate.
The Telegraph article is just rage bait, no different to Sun articles about single moms getting 4 grand a month, or whatever, and moaning it isn’t enough.
I listened to a Bloomberg podcast this week that claimed the top 1% of all earners paid 29% of all taxes and over the last 40 years lower earners have paid proportionally less.
I’m not quite sure how much tax we expect people to pay. The well off clearly pay taxes and a lot of them.
This. Whenever I see articles like this I just think "STFU". I'm paying 25% CT and then 39% IT on the sizable profits of my UK based business, and I don't like it, but who exactly should I expect sympathy from ? World's smallest violin etc etc
Comments
Talking of which, what were the immigration numbers like during Jenrick's time as Immigration minister? It would clearly be unfair (and a bit dishonest) to blame him for peak Boriswave happening on his watch, but since when has politics been fair or honest?
With the U turns etc his authority is pretty much shot if he can't get the changes through (i very much hope he can't)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8dp75gw8lo
The Mauritians have been very good at playing the global entrepôt game - positioning as the gateway to Africa for Middle Eastern investors, a tax-efficient vehicle for Indian inbound and outbound FDI, an infrastructure target for China, all the while making big efforts to institute anti-corruption, transparency and governance structures to get itself off the EU’s black list of uncooperative tax havens. They also have
the Swiss-style approach to dictators and dictatorships: none of our business, we want to be everyone’s friend.
"BBC arts broadcaster Alan Yentob dies aged 78"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8dp75gw8lo
Tories though probably end up like the LDs - a few stronger areas and nothing at all elsewhere
So, the Roman Empire got Honorius and Valentinian, and their useless courtiers, in the Fifth century crisis.
The Liberals of the Twenties got Lloyd George and Asquith and Samuel, who actually had ability, but couldn’t stop putting the knife into each other.
The Conservatives have had a run of poor leaders, who get undermined in turn, by a cabal of MP’s who plainly hate each other.
And yet, when things are going well, treachery and incompetence are survivable. There are broader shifts in allegiance and outlook that threaten the Conservatives, just as they did the 1920’s Liberals.
The MPA also had an ulterior motive of keeping the Chagossians out, as revealed in some FCO leaks. It's not as though the UK Government was suddenly overcome with environmental concern - but it should be, because it (was) our single most important ecological asset.
See my many cries of despair at the ruination of the planet on my travels. See my disputes with @BartholomewRoberts when he wants to concrete over the country for identikit estates
It’s one of my big beefs with the Carswell plan I linked below. He’s happy to let rip and develop the Green Belt. I am definitely NOT
Tea, I think
Labour’s VAT raid forces six-figure families to make lifestyle sacrifices
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/earn-345k-soaring-private-school-fees/ (£££)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeIQWbyzx4E
20 minutes of Spectator editor Gove speaking to Spectator TV.
False flag graffiti.
The islands were national territory of the United Kingdom, but no British nationals lived there.
Instead, the entire 'population' was simply a United States military base.
Claims were laid by displaced residents who had moved somewhere else? Or been moved somewhere else?
Why couldn't we simply do a reverse-scramble for Africa?
"The United Kingdom no longer wants this territory and sees it no longer part of our nation. First one to plant an alternative flag can have it."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/c1ca11cecbc63e55
Every little helps as the saying goes
Labour replacing the Liberals as the Conservatives main opposition also meant the Conservatives were in office for most of the 20th century. I suspect if Reform replaced the Conservatives as the main party of the right Labour would fancy their chances of leading most governments this century, alone or with the LDs
The problem driving climate change is CO2. It keeps that KW of heat in. And the extra 41 billion tons of CO2 we produce this year isn’t gonna help next year.
That needs to change.
Renewables can make the change profitable for some and the loss of fossil fuel survivable for the rest of us.
I don’t understand your opposition.
So, overall, I think we should be very careful before making the technocratic assumption that changing our voting system will make anything better for anyone except our already far too entitled political class.
The lady's mother in the video was doubled over with osteopaenia, and because she's built so much muscle she can now stand upright for long periods, clean the house as she would wish, and basically live a more normal and active life. The muscles are supporting the bits of her that aren't working so well.
And as the man says, unless you're dead or you have a very specific condition, you can build muscle.
Don't get me wrong - I am sure the Otago programme works, and I applaud anyone getting more active, it all helps.
Reform's impact in this part of East London notwithstanding, the "all things to all people" approach will only get them so far. They are currently the recepticle of anger, dillusionment, frustration and exhaustion but also hope inasmuch as some who support Farage believe he is the answer.
I'd suggest if they think that they've not worked out the question.
The first nonsense is to describe Reform as a "hard right" party - they aren't. Culturally conservative, nationalist and anti-immigrant, yes but on spending they are as far up the Magic Money Tree as Jeremy Corbyn.
The problem is fiscal rectitude doesn't sell - saying "we can't go on as we are" is fine until you actually have to do something about it (ask any addict). Carswell plays the same old tune of tax and public spending cuts but the truth, we all know, is tax rises (substantial) AND spending cuts (once you've worked out what you can't cut).
Carswell is probably right in saying the relationship between State and citizen needs to be redefined but it can't solely be on the basis of less of the former though there's a point about personal responsibility which often gets forgotten.
Perhaps more importantly than that, the decarbonisation agenda is being driven by a club of very wealthy individuals, Governments and companies who are committed to removing hard-won freedoms and hard-earned money from the middle and working classes, moving toward a vision of a bleak, impoverished (for most), socially immobile and tyrannical world that I simply don't want to live in.
It's really not about global warming - because when they want to make it harder for you to have or drive a vehicle, run a business, or frankly do anything to prosper, suddenly you see bait and switch, and when the Co2 argument doesn't work, suddenly its all about clean air and polluting the lungs of children, or running people over by going at 30mph, etc. etc. etc. The stated goal of the 'transition' is not a reduction in global temperature - it is the transition itself.
I understand that many very well-meaning and concerned people are caught up in this guff, and have a lot of sympathy with them and their efforts to make the world a better place. However, I think they're very deceived, and perhaps want to be, because they alternative is to believe that people with a lot of power do not have our best interests at heart, and that is a scary paradigm shift to make.
Incredible music. So sophisticated. Also, it hasn't dated AT ALL - if this music was invented and broadcast tomorrow it would be instantly recognised as coolly modern, unique and cutting-edge - how does it do that?
And the descending, glittering trill in Atmosphere still gives me tingles
Could be in fact that you're simply searching for* reasons to support your climate-change scepticism?
(*Aka 'making up')
Because it's profitable, and cements some peoples' power and privilege I suppose.
Meanwhile in what we think of as the real world, generative AI systems hallucinate ideas and present them as facts that some people are unable to distinguish from objective truth.
In the climax of Andor, Senator Mothma gives a speech in which she laments the extent of propaganda; "The difference between what we are told and objective truth has become a chasm"
Back in the real world, the US President is losing whatever grip he had on objective reality. He think photoshopped images are real. He believes conspiracy theories and junk science. He complains that Biden didn't actually sign bills, while he himself signs things he hasn't read and doesn't understand.
Amidst all of this, on the darkest, dumbest timeline, the Tories grand plan is...
...to bring back BoZo !
A fabricator of alternative facts so prolific he couldn't lie straight in bed
(If you google couldn't lie straight, the top answer gives as an example "Boris Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed.")
We're all doomed
Smoking in the dynamite room was how one commentator I saw put it.
The problem is too many people want free money, free stuff, and we have a political class who ‘didn’t come into politics to cut benefits/wfa/make difficult decisions’ who just want to be liked and do nice things.
People think the solution is higher taxes, but they really just want taxes on others. This is why people favour a so-called wealth tax.
We already have a roll back on WFA. We will probably get one on the so called PIP cuts, which really sees the growing spend slow a little from 33 billion this parliament to 26 billion, and there is always pressure from lobbyists on the 2 child benefits ‘cap’.
We need a govt prepared to tackle tough issues. We’ve got one that caves to the slightest pressure and kicks difficult decisions down the road and the deputy is shit stirring as she wants the top job.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/05/24/france-seizes-british-fishing-boat-in-english-channel/
In the meantime, Svante Arrhenius's model (which is over a century old, and back-of-an-envelope crude) is playing out pretty well.
It was blindingly obvious that the Acts of Enclosure were going to help privileged landowners.
It is not blindingly obvious how restricting the speed people can drive generates profits for anyone - thought it does make our roads safer of course.
It is not blindingly obvious how the move to renewables generates profits for established businesses in say petrochemicals, automotive, aviation, etc. unless they are willing to adapt.
If you wanted to protect the profits and privileges of these companies you'd need to squash the climate-change response.
And unsurprisingly many tried to do that, aided by useful climate-change denying idiots. Inconveniently, the climate did not play ball nor did reputable scientists, and in fairness, most respectable politicians listened, as did the great mass of the public.
My preference is to enable developments to be unique by reforming planning to remove the oligopoly of developers grip over developments and so then developments would not be identikit. Identikit only happens because an oligopoly controls all construction thanks to our broken planning system that blocks anyone else from developing anything.
However we have a chronic housing shortage, so if the choice is an identikit development or no development at all, then the identikit one is the lesser of two evils.
My preference though is to go back to the pre-socialism 1930s planning regime that enabled developments and good construction of beautiful homes, rather than preventing developments altogether then only allowing identikit ones through.
I know you admire old buildings from previous centuries. We should go back to the planning regime that existed when they were built.
My predictions:
City
Villa
Forest
I was merely using our debates to illustrate my point that I really DO care about the environment. It's a massive issue for me. Remember when I went into a meltdown over the Faroese killing all the pilot whales?!
For a baby-eating rightwinger I am very sentimental - and sometimes angry - about the way we treat our beautiful planet. I travel to explore places and it makes me nauseous, sometimes, to see how casually we trash everything. So, yeah, I do care about the seas of the Chagos being plundered all to make Keir Starmer and his fucking evil lawyer friends feel morally good about "decolonisation". Wankers. I hate them
The daylight appears before the sun after all.
Yes, I find it more likely that the correlation daylight and the sun rising that we observe is because the daylight causes the sun to rise, not because the rising sun causes daylight. It seems natural to me that as the daylight appears, the sun decides to get up.
Everton were 7/1 to win in the week.
Many people do too. A lot of people have a dislike to others doing things they disapprove of and are quite happy to see rights taken away.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Now having said that the way to fight those who wish to abuse climate concerns to further their agenda, watermelon greens as I call them, which is a group which definitely exists, is not to deny climate change. It is to decouple concerns about the climate from their agenda. Embracing clean technologies and clean power means we can have as much consumption as we want, without damaging the environment.
If we can have a grid powered by renewables and batteries etc then there is no need to cut consumption and the watermelon greens lose the ability to abuse the environment to further their agenda.
I'll make a few comments separately on the medicals. Small pleasures, certainly, apply.
Yesterday I had my first mini road trip for some time, when I went to see a friend in Oldham just diagnosed with cancer. I can confirm Oldham taxi drivers do not like people in front of them stopping at the exit of a medium sized traffic island to let the pedestrians cross, as the Highway Code requires. They have enough green space that they see deer out of their house back windows.
On the way I was in Sheffield visiting my godmother, who is 90 next year, and demanded that I turn up with fish and chips from her favourite shop, and a Saturday Telegraph. Her entire extended family went to London on a coach to Wembley for Sheffield Utd vs Sunderland, starting at 7:30am, and one lot had some from Doncaster to catch the coach. I have not spoken to her since Sheffield were defeated.
I also turned up with chocolates from a beautiful handmade homemade chocolate shop in Cromford, near Matlock, called Taylor-Wilde. It's distinctive because they make about 40 different chocolates; "One of everything, twice", was surprisingly economical. There is also usually a Triking 3 wheeler (like a Morgan 3 wheeler, but properly engineered), and a 1952 MG TD parked outside, and a famous rabbit-warren bookshop called Scarthins across the road with a cafe buried in the books (12 rooms, 3 floors, 100k books), and an early industrial canal to walk along.
I'll make this my photo quota for today:
In a sign of the times they are on Facebook, and not I think the web.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100063620166330#
Ultimately, LGs post is an eloquent conspiracy theory. I have much more time for people who question whether we're getting the balance right on reducing carbon emissions, the perversion of offloading them to China etc etc, but this is proper tinfoil stuff and links into the anti-vaxxer, 5G, 15-minute city, WEF ecosystem.
I know some people with that sort of income, who quietly bring up their children, don't complain, don't talk about money and how poor they are, have lots of middle income friends, are interested in the welfare of not well off people, give lots of money away and think they are very fortunate.
SOTV
https://x.com/coral/status/1926566481778585933?s=61
I listened to a Bloomberg podcast this week that claimed the top 1% of all earners paid 29% of all taxes and over the last 40 years lower earners have paid proportionally less.
I’m not quite sure how much tax we expect people to pay. The well off clearly pay taxes and a lot of them.
https://x.com/kevinaschofield/status/1926553406832795835?s=61
I don't consider building less of anything is of any benefit, we have plenty of space, and the overwhelming majority of the country is undeveloped - windmills and batteries don't take much space either.
Take Runcorn and Widnes as an example, in the not very distant past if I used to drive back to Merseyside to visit my family I would get my car covered in soot from Fiddlers Ferry Power Station, which can't be too healthy for the people living there either.
Now the power station is decommissioned as we don't need the coal power anymore and instead if you drive down the M56 you're greeted with the sight of many windmills providing the power instead.
Those windmills are a lot more beautiful in my eyes than Fiddlers Ferry ever was and don't cover everything in soot.
Saving energy where it isn't a sacrifice, eg using efficient bulbs, is only sensible. But would I rather sacrifice by not using power, rely upon soot-based power, or rely upon windmills and batteries? Easily the latter. Especially given the latter is increasingly considerably cheaper too.
Edit: Hope they show some of the old Imagine films again - especially the Dave Gilmour one.
Clearly most of the 1% wouldn't be earning anything like as much without all the work the rest of the population does. If they're paying much more tax proportionally, and yet, still appear to be getting wealthier, then it's a sign of a broken system, not of them paying too much tax.
They're producing leccy, not flour.
If some are getting wealthier while others aren't, despite economic growth, then that's a problem.
People need to pay more tax to stop them becoming wealthy or growing their wealth.
A most aspirational approach.
I posted yesterday that modern browsers can provide live captions or simultaneous subtitles.
Chrome – (three dots menu) > settings > accessibility (on left) > live caption
It seemed to work for a Kent council livestream but then I noticed everyone had an American accent and it turns out there is a Kent over there as well.
Perhaps you can try it. There is no point activists wasting scarce funds on a legal challenge if they will just be told to press a few buttons.
Modern Chemo and immunotherapy doesn't have to be gruelling, and sometimes works very well.
Fingers crossed.
How about all the very rich people who live only off investments? Or the ones who earn enough money and then tap out of the rat race? Perhaps a true aspirational approach would allow more people to earn more money, and in turn they can generate more money for the economy.
Love that!