The Times reports that hundreds of asylum seekers per week are, after having claimed asylum and benefits in Britain, crossing into Ireland to simultaneously claim asylum and benefits there.
The Times reports that hundreds of asylum seekers per week are, after having claimed asylum and benefits in Britain, crossing into Ireland to simultaneously claim asylum and benefits there.
I can't imagine that Streeting could become leader if its he who's rocked the boat. Were Starmer to stand down and support Streeting as his successor then he has a good chance.
Rayner is favourite in my view - but again I don't think that were she to try a coup it'd go down well.
It's very hard to see a path for Burnham.
But there are a lot of others - it feels to me that the likes of Torsten Bell and Peter Kyle could well be harbouring ambitions (Very thin info)
The Times reports that hundreds of asylum seekers per week are, after having claimed asylum and benefits in Britain, crossing into Ireland to simultaneously claim asylum and benefits there.
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Good morning PB!
That is a very good thread. Kind of a model of what a great X thread can be: lucid, sharp, pointed, brisk, highly educational. Like a presentation online, illustrated with graphs
And yes: looks like we need nuclear
At the prices we're building it for, it's no help. If we sort that out, possibly.
The Times reports that hundreds of asylum seekers per week are, after having claimed asylum and benefits in Britain, crossing into Ireland to simultaneously claim asylum and benefits there.
Streeting/Mahmood would be about as far to the right as Labour could get without becoming stretched to transparency. It would be like the Tories going for a speaker era Bercow/Nick Boles leftward lurch
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
All these Norwegians running up this mountain are making me feel old. Especially the ones that are also old. Time to have a fiddle with the phone...
I've never felt older than when Korean septuagenarians were passing me on the way up Hallasan. A couple of ajummas stopped in passing to offer tangerines.
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
The Labour party would first need to change its constitution. To get on the leadership ballot, a candidate must be a sitting MP
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
I've Liked this, then wondered; are you secretly campaigning for Drakeford?
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Good morning PB!
That is a very good thread. Kind of a model of what a great X thread can be: lucid, sharp, pointed, brisk, highly educational. Like a presentation online, illustrated with graphs
And yes: looks like we need nuclear
At the prices we're building it for, it's no help. If we sort that out, possibly.
I'm not optimistic on the latter point.
Labour Yimby are disappointed by the Government’s decision to concede to the Nimby lobby on the planning reforms this country so desperately needs.
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Good morning PB!
That is a very good thread. Kind of a model of what a great X thread can be: lucid, sharp, pointed, brisk, highly educational. Like a presentation online, illustrated with graphs
And yes: looks like we need nuclear
At the prices we're building it for, it's no help. If we sort that out, possibly.
Talking of X threads, why on earth is the site using Bluesky?
Bluesky is dying on its arse. It is folding. It is perishing. It is banjaxed
I read the other day that it is now down to 600,000 regular users. X, by contrast, is SEVENTY times bigger than this. There is no contest; Bluesky has failed
No one goes on Bluesky anymore apart from a rabble of whining lefties, a couple of stubborn celebs (tho even they are slinking back to X) plus a few voyeuristic rightwingers who go on there to laugh at the inmates, like posh people touring Bedlam in 1810
The Times reports that hundreds of asylum seekers per week are, after having claimed asylum and benefits in Britain, crossing into Ireland to simultaneously claim asylum and benefits there.
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
I've Liked this, then wondered; are you secretly campaigning for Drakeford?
LOL. But, apart from the fact he's quite old and probably wanted to retire, it struck me that in any sensible political system, an incoming Labour government would have offered him a Cabinet position.
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
The Labour party would first need to change its constitution. To get on the leadership ballot, a candidate must be a sitting MP
Indeed, any party member in good standing should be eligible. I don't understand why you would have a selection system that may exclude the best candidate for the role. The small parties don't seem to have this problem.
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Not on X so can't read the replies but the advantage of wind is that it blows at night. And more in the winter time when energy consumption is likely to be highest. And although solar may still be cheaper the transmission costs from, eg, the Sahara to here would be massive. Given where we are on the globe I think we have made the right choice. If anyone wants to worry about the base cost of our electricity for manufacturing it is nuclear they should be worrying about, not wind.
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Not on X so can't read the replies but the advantage of wind is that it blows at night. And more in the winter time when energy consumption is likely to be highest. And although solar may still be cheaper the transmission costs from, eg, the Sahara to here would be massive. Given where we are on the globe I think we have made the right choice. If anyone wants to worry about the base cost of our electricity for manufacturing it is nuclear they should be worrying about, not wind.
Boswall's thread points out the key engineering issue of the lifetime costs of any engineered product (for those of you that haven't had to deal with it). PV is simpler, cheaper and less lifetime costs from an installation, running and maintenance point of view.
Against this (as alluded to in the transmission cost) is that solar is in the wrong place for the UK. But if the North Africans decide to set up a grid with the Southern Europeans, you could see an energy cascade northwards. They will have to allow for the NIMBYs that don't like HV transmission lines in their area - a real issue in the UK.
It's a useful contribution to the debate and domestic energy storage (Tesla batteries or even a Tesla) looks like another additional area for future building regulation, if GCH is to be banned. I say that as someone who made their living out of the polluting coal power stations and the even more polluting nuclear.
I have no comment to make on wind - people know my view on that.
But I will say more generally that UK energy policy is in my view heavily led by lobbyists and interest groups - as well as the overall direction of travel being to tick emissions boxes, not generate plentiful, inexpensive energy.
Therefore it is entirely predictable that we would choose the least efficient form of power generation, because greater the inefficiency, the greater money someone is making out of it. We tend to think of 'Government waste' just going into a metaphorical toilet, and nobody would mind if it stopped. Of course, that isn't the case. It actually goes into another organisation's pockets, and those organisations have the resources and influence to keep it that way.
I am not being fatalistic - I really do believe the next Government will start the journey of serious reform that the country needs. But they need to understand broadly that there will be fierce opposition from those who like the current set up - not just for ideological reasons but for profound commercial ones.
For some strange reason, Brits like burning things (coal, gas, nuclear fuel) as they choose to buy poorly insulated shoddily built homes. Perhaps its a weather thing. If we had to cope with months of sub-zero temperatures, we might pay a bit more attention to insulation rather than generation.
Transport secretary has put the rest of the HS2 land around Leeds up for sale.
Seems a bit short-sighted, unless I’m missing some downside to keeping hold of it?
Civil Service probably advised that since there's no real intention of spending money on transport infrastructure in the north, they can sell the assets and bring the cash back to London.
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
The Labour party would first need to change its constitution. To get on the leadership ballot, a candidate must be a sitting MP
Indeed, any party member in good standing should be eligible. I don't understand why you would have a selection system that may exclude the best candidate for the role. The small parties don't seem to have this problem.
As party leader, sure. In Burnhams case, I think trying to foist him on us as our PM before he had a seat in the Commons would be the electoral end of the Labour Party and he'd probably very likely lose any by election - the opposition would put up a unity candidate under some sort of 'stop the outrage!' banner Telling HMK not a single one of your 400 MPs can govern and it has to be 'some dude' would also be constitutionally interesting
Fpt Trump’s attempt to shut down the big pal of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein story seems to be going well. Elon appears to be entirely relaxed about everyone saying anything they like about ex best buddy DJT on X/Twitter.
now trending 'Is Donald Trump a genuine paedophile?'
While there is a certain schadenfreude about this, it really doesn't change my mind about the toxicity of Social Media mobs.
This sort of toxic discourse is wrong no matter who the target is.
Terry Christian has accused Enoch Powell of being a paedophile dozens of times recently on twitter. I don’t know the legal position on things like this but, if they were made aware, I’d be surprised if Powell’s daughters didn’t take some kind of action.
Cannae libel the dead I think is the legal position.
Although @TSE has frequent goes at Hannibal, Cannae notwithstanding.
There were only 14 years between Cannae and Zama, as I recall.
All these Norwegians running up this mountain are making me feel old. Especially the ones that are also old. Time to have a fiddle with the phone...
I've never felt older than when Korean septuagenarians were passing me on the way up Hallasan. A couple of ajummas stopped in passing to offer tangerines.
Back in 1997, there was an 80-odd year old lady racing ahead of me up an Arizona mountain at 9,000 feet plus, to see Spotted Owls...
Clearly wanted to see them before she died. Which, to my non-medical eye, seemed to becoming quite a race.
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
The Labour party would first need to change its constitution. To get on the leadership ballot, a candidate must be a sitting MP
Indeed, any party member in good standing should be eligible. I don't understand why you would have a selection system that may exclude the best candidate for the role. The small parties don't seem to have this problem.
As party leader, sure. In Burnhams case, I think trying to foist him on us as our PM before he had a seat in the Commons would be the electoral end of the Labour Party and he'd probably very likely lose any by election - the opposition would put up a unity candidate under some sort of 'stop the outrage!' banner Telling HMK not a single one of your 400 MPs can govern and it has to be 'some dude' would also be constitutionally interesting
X, by contrast, is SEVENTY times bigger than this.
98.73% of those "users" are (fascist) bots
TwiX is an intellectual dead end (for fascists)
Bluesky is overly siloed, though, which meant their great opportunity didn't bear fruit. They probably need to rethink how it's structured, if it's not already too late.
X directs a torrent of shit at you, but with a little effort you can filter out the shit, and retain some of the torrent. Bluesky does the filtering, but doesn't provide a torrent to bathe in.
What hypothetical polls do tell us is that significant sections of the voting public are not happy with what is on offer from existing parties.
With such multiple different political currents around we either need an electoral system that treats multiple parties fairly, or genuine democracy within the major parties. Tories, Labour and Reform are all led very much top down, with little or no grass roots say on policy or direction.
And thank the Lord for that. If you think the leadership are delusional, stupid and plain ignorant, have a look at the membership. Who twice voted for Corbyn. Who voted for IDS and Liz Truss. Who support Farage no matter what. The idea that the membership of any of these parties should be let near policy is frankly frightening.
Policy shouldn't purely be based on activists, but neither should their opinions be ignored outside leadership contests. The same too for backbenchers.
I haven't been a member of a political party for more than 30 years. I just never see the point. They really don't care what you think. You have no right to even be listened to. You are just a cashpoint for other peoples' ambitions. The one thing you get in most parties (not Farage's vehicles, of course) is the right to vote for the leadership. And the membership have proven themselves to be consistently useless at that.
Your point here becomes borderline incoherent. You don't want to be a member because they don't get a say, yet you're appalled at the say they do have.
As for Tory members electing poor leaders, as I've reminded you several times, they are choosing between a shortlist of two presented to them by the PCP. In IDS's case they rejected someone completely ideologically opposed to the settled Eurosceptical view of the wider party, and in Truss's case they rejected Sunak, who want on to lead the Tories to their most crushing defeat in living memory. Sunak was shit on that campaign trail (as he was in Government, and in the GE) and any sensible electorate would have rejected him for the complete dud he was. It's a deeply flawed system, but it's idiotic (as surely you know) to highlight the members choosing one candidate from two, when the MPs have selected 2 from many.
Many of the Conservative MPs who thought they were being oh-so-clever in the games they played on who to put to the membership were shown to be complete fuckwits when they were booted out by the voters as a consequence of that twattishness.
They have a lifetime away from power to think on their actions. I hope every day stings like chilli in the eye.
Why do we think Conservative MPs are any more sensible than the members?
The members have to deal with the choices put before them.
Although, voting for Truss shows they ain't exactly politically attuned either...
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Good morning PB!
That is a very good thread. Kind of a model of what a great X thread can be: lucid, sharp, pointed, brisk, highly educational. Like a presentation online, illustrated with graphs
And yes: looks like we need nuclear
At the prices we're building it for, it's no help. If we sort that out, possibly.
Talking of X threads, why on earth is the site using Bluesky?
Bluesky is dying on its arse. It is folding. It is perishing. It is banjaxed
I read the other day that it is now down to 600,000 regular users. X, by contrast, is SEVENTY times bigger than this. There is no contest; Bluesky has failed
No one goes on Bluesky anymore apart from a rabble of whining lefties, a couple of stubborn celebs (tho even they are slinking back to X) plus a few voyeuristic rightwingers who go on there to laugh at the inmates, like posh people touring Bedlam in 1810
Just from a practical point of view - X is so random as to whether you can see content if you're not logged in. Sometimes you can see a post - but not replies or follow-on's to a thread. Sometimes you can't even see the original post. So if the same content is crossposted on bluesky you know (for now) it's at least readable.
What hypothetical polls do tell us is that significant sections of the voting public are not happy with what is on offer from existing parties.
With such multiple different political currents around we either need an electoral system that treats multiple parties fairly, or genuine democracy within the major parties. Tories, Labour and Reform are all led very much top down, with little or no grass roots say on policy or direction.
And thank the Lord for that. If you think the leadership are delusional, stupid and plain ignorant, have a look at the membership. Who twice voted for Corbyn. Who voted for IDS and Liz Truss. Who support Farage no matter what. The idea that the membership of any of these parties should be let near policy is frankly frightening.
Policy shouldn't purely be based on activists, but neither should their opinions be ignored outside leadership contests. The same too for backbenchers.
I haven't been a member of a political party for more than 30 years. I just never see the point. They really don't care what you think. You have no right to even be listened to. You are just a cashpoint for other peoples' ambitions. The one thing you get in most parties (not Farage's vehicles, of course) is the right to vote for the leadership. And the membership have proven themselves to be consistently useless at that.
Your point here becomes borderline incoherent. You don't want to be a member because they don't get a say, yet you're appalled at the say they do have.
As for Tory members electing poor leaders, as I've reminded you several times, they are choosing between a shortlist of two presented to them by the PCP. In IDS's case they rejected someone completely ideologically opposed to the settled Eurosceptical view of the wider party, and in Truss's case they rejected Sunak, who want on to lead the Tories to their most crushing defeat in living memory. Sunak was shit on that campaign trail (as he was in Government, and in the GE) and any sensible electorate would have rejected him for the complete dud he was. It's a deeply flawed system, but it's idiotic (as surely you know) to highlight the members choosing one candidate from two, when the MPs have selected 2 from many.
Many of the Conservative MPs who thought they were being oh-so-clever in the games they played on who to put to the membership were shown to be complete fuckwits when they were booted out by the voters as a consequence of that twattishness.
They have a lifetime away from power to think on their actions. I hope every day stings like chilli in the eye.
The additional problem is that a fair bunch of them, led by Shapps, look like they are going to try and win their seats back. Whereas the party desperately needs a fresh start, not the same failed retreads putting themselves up again.
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
The Labour party would first need to change its constitution. To get on the leadership ballot, a candidate must be a sitting MP
Indeed, any party member in good standing should be eligible. I don't understand why you would have a selection system that may exclude the best candidate for the role. The small parties don't seem to have this problem.
As party leader, sure. In Burnhams case, I think trying to foist him on us as our PM before he had a seat in the Commons would be the electoral end of the Labour Party and he'd probably very likely lose any by election - the opposition would put up a unity candidate under some sort of 'stop the outrage!' banner Telling HMK not a single one of your 400 MPs can govern and it has to be 'some dude' would also be constitutionally interesting
Burnham also crashed out of national politics. Pretty badly.
Reinventing himself as a regional champion has gone well. He is popular because he doesn’t have to take responsibility for cuts or tax rises. To be fair, he has worked pretty hard within the limitations of the job. He has built a solid personal following. Even with the Labour collapse, he will win the next Mayoral election, I think.
So, he has relatively secure, well paid job. That he likes and does well. Within the Labour movement he is lauded from Left to Right.
Giving that up to, to try to and become leader, when that is looking like a disaster?
Why would he? Ambition? A belief that “only I can save this”? Not sure I see either of those in Burnham.
I've read "Get In" and "Taken as Red" and tried to keep up with the goss, so I think I'm right in saying that Streeting is Blair's chosen successor. Since they have the money and the contacts, I assume we will see more items along the lines of "Streeting's the One!", "Only Streeting can Save Us!", between now and 2028/9, of which this is one. Whether it'll get past the membership is another matter, but since when did the Blairites care about that?
I read that interesting thread on wind and solar, and the answer to Britain’s dilemma jumped out at me.
What about if we found some locations close to the equator, and in the Southern hemisphere, where the locals were up for doing some sort of deal to give us control over the land in exchange for trade and protection? And if they weren’t willing, we could take it by force. Then we could build loads of solar generation there, and the industries to make use of it.
Empire of the Sun.
Presumably, supply chains being what they are, if electricity becomes almost free in equatorial regions then It’ll become economic to produce vast amounts of green hydrogen and ship it north, just like the gulf ships us LNG at the moment.
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
The Labour party would first need to change its constitution. To get on the leadership ballot, a candidate must be a sitting MP
Indeed, any party member in good standing should be eligible. I don't understand why you would have a selection system that may exclude the best candidate for the role. The small parties don't seem to have this problem.
As party leader, sure. In Burnhams case, I think trying to foist him on us as our PM before he had a seat in the Commons would be the electoral end of the Labour Party and he'd probably very likely lose any by election - the opposition would put up a unity candidate under some sort of 'stop the outrage!' banner Telling HMK not a single one of your 400 MPs can govern and it has to be 'some dude' would also be constitutionally interesting
It worked in Canada.
This isn't Canada and the Liberals didnt have a landslide majority. And parliament was prorogued so no confidence vote could be tried, very different place and circumstances. Yes it is possible to do it, i'm suggesting what i think the implications of doing it would be.
Laptop is fine except what you type in the comment box is a very small font, but at least it is easily readable
The mobile version is pretty close to unusable for me. The comments are clear but I have to zoom in a huge amount to see who has posted or to respond or like. When I say the font is small I'm talking micro dot level.
Others don't seem to be having a problem. Is this some set up issue for me. Was fine before.
On another point: @hyufd as previously mentioned, I sent a private message to you last week. I assume you haven't seen it. I also note from private messages I have received in the last few weeks you no longer get an email notification of a private message having been received. That was useful.
I really didn't notice any difference in the format using my laptop until this morning, but now the format is completely different and I can now see the annoying issues other posters have been raising over the last few days.
That article is rather odd. It asks the sample to rate the candidates by first/second/third, then it adds them up and ranks. So first position is the person who gets the most first+second+third votes combined.
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Not on X so can't read the replies but the advantage of wind is that it blows at night. And more in the winter time when energy consumption is likely to be highest. And although solar may still be cheaper the transmission costs from, eg, the Sahara to here would be massive. Given where we are on the globe I think we have made the right choice. If anyone wants to worry about the base cost of our electricity for manufacturing it is nuclear they should be worrying about, not wind.
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Not on X so can't read the replies but the advantage of wind is that it blows at night. And more in the winter time when energy consumption is likely to be highest. And although solar may still be cheaper the transmission costs from, eg, the Sahara to here would be massive. Given where we are on the globe I think we have made the right choice. If anyone wants to worry about the base cost of our electricity for manufacturing it is nuclear they should be worrying about, not wind.
Boswall's thread points out the key engineering issue of the lifetime costs of any engineered product (for those of you that haven't had to deal with it). PV is simpler, cheaper and less lifetime costs from an installation, running and maintenance point of view.
Against this (as alluded to in the transmission cost) is that solar is in the wrong place for the UK. But if the North Africans decide to set up a grid with the Southern Europeans, you could see an energy cascade northwards. They will have to allow for the NIMBYs that don't like HV transmission lines in their area - a real issue in the UK.
It's a useful contribution to the debate and domestic energy storage (Tesla batteries or even a Tesla) looks like another additional area for future building regulation, if GCH is to be banned. I say that as someone who made their living out of the polluting coal power stations and the even more polluting nuclear.
I have no comment to make on wind - people know my view on that.
But I will say more generally that UK energy policy is in my view heavily led by lobbyists and interest groups - as well as the overall direction of travel being to tick emissions boxes, not generate plentiful, inexpensive energy.
Therefore it is entirely predictable that we would choose the least efficient form of power generation, because greater the inefficiency, the greater money someone is making out of it. We tend to think of 'Government waste' just going into a metaphorical toilet, and nobody would mind if it stopped. Of course, that isn't the case. It actually goes into another organisation's pockets, and those organisations have the resources and influence to keep it that way.
I am not being fatalistic - I really do believe the next Government will start the journey of serious reform that the country needs. But they need to understand broadly that there will be fierce opposition from those who like the current set up - not just for ideological reasons but for profound commercial ones.
For some strange reason, Brits like burning things (coal, gas, nuclear fuel) as they choose to buy poorly insulated shoddily built homes. Perhaps its a weather thing. If we had to cope with months of sub-zero temperatures, we might pay a bit more attention to insulation rather than generation.
It has nothing to do with 'Brits', who have very little choice over what gets 'burned', or frankly how well houses are insulated - most of us count ourselves lucky to own one.
Our parlous situation relates to successive Governments' energy policies being the result of the desire by decision makers to be feted at climate conferences, and being at it.
I will never forget him getting into an F1 car and then he couldn't get out of it. He tried to get the press to go away whilst he got hauled out, but they didn't.
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
The Labour party would first need to change its constitution. To get on the leadership ballot, a candidate must be a sitting MP
Indeed, any party member in good standing should be eligible. I don't understand why you would have a selection system that may exclude the best candidate for the role. The small parties don't seem to have this problem.
As party leader, sure. In Burnhams case, I think trying to foist him on us as our PM before he had a seat in the Commons would be the electoral end of the Labour Party and he'd probably very likely lose any by election - the opposition would put up a unity candidate under some sort of 'stop the outrage!' banner Telling HMK not a single one of your 400 MPs can govern and it has to be 'some dude' would also be constitutionally interesting
Burnham also crashed out of national politics. Pretty badly.
Reinventing himself as a regional champion has gone well. He is popular because he doesn’t have to take responsibility for cuts or tax rises. To be fair, he has worked pretty hard within the limitations of the job. He has built a solid personal following. Even with the Labour collapse, he will win the next Mayoral election, I think.
So, he has relatively secure, well paid job. That he likes and does well. Within the Labour movement he is lauded from Left to Right.
Giving that up to, to try to and become leader, when that is looking like a disaster?
Why would he? Ambition? A belief that “only I can save this”? Not sure I see either of those in Burnham.
As it stands there is no route to number 10 for him unless he wins a by election before a vacancy as leader arises in any case. Hes not going to give up his mayoralty to become a backbencher who might have enough suppiot to maybe get on the ballot if a vacancy arises
If Starmer went on that LabourList poll Streeting would end up the Clarke to Rayner's IDS in the membership vote. Burnham, the Prince over the Water for Labour is out of Parliament and not eligible at present as Portillo, the former Prince over the Water for the Tories, was out of Parliament from 1997-2001
My illusions about Anthony Wells have been shattered by all those photos. He is now in my head as half Jeremy Corbyn, half David Bellamy - fortunately without the rabbit suit from The Goodies.
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
The Labour party would first need to change its constitution. To get on the leadership ballot, a candidate must be a sitting MP
Indeed, any party member in good standing should be eligible. I don't understand why you would have a selection system that may exclude the best candidate for the role. The small parties don't seem to have this problem.
As party leader, sure. In Burnhams case, I think trying to foist him on us as our PM before he had a seat in the Commons would be the electoral end of the Labour Party and he'd probably very likely lose any by election - the opposition would put up a unity candidate under some sort of 'stop the outrage!' banner Telling HMK not a single one of your 400 MPs can govern and it has to be 'some dude' would also be constitutionally interesting
It worked in Canada.
Carney was elected as an MP in a national election held just over a month after he became PM.
It would require Starmer to step down and be replaced by Burnham in 2028 and Burnham to call a snap election straight after on the same basis, having first been selected for a safe Greater Manchester seat
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
The Labour party would first need to change its constitution. To get on the leadership ballot, a candidate must be a sitting MP
Indeed, any party member in good standing should be eligible. I don't understand why you would have a selection system that may exclude the best candidate for the role. The small parties don't seem to have this problem.
As party leader, sure. In Burnhams case, I think trying to foist him on us as our PM before he had a seat in the Commons would be the electoral end of the Labour Party and he'd probably very likely lose any by election - the opposition would put up a unity candidate under some sort of 'stop the outrage!' banner Telling HMK not a single one of your 400 MPs can govern and it has to be 'some dude' would also be constitutionally interesting
Why? An MP is a legislator, not a trainee PM. Surely having a regional/devolved "executive" role is better experience for being PM than a backbench MP or even shad cab minister. If SKS were to step down now, most of the candidates would have only 1 year cabinet experience.
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Not on X so can't read the replies but the advantage of wind is that it blows at night. And more in the winter time when energy consumption is likely to be highest. And although solar may still be cheaper the transmission costs from, eg, the Sahara to here would be massive. Given where we are on the globe I think we have made the right choice. If anyone wants to worry about the base cost of our electricity for manufacturing it is nuclear they should be worrying about, not wind.
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Not on X so can't read the replies but the advantage of wind is that it blows at night. And more in the winter time when energy consumption is likely to be highest. And although solar may still be cheaper the transmission costs from, eg, the Sahara to here would be massive. Given where we are on the globe I think we have made the right choice. If anyone wants to worry about the base cost of our electricity for manufacturing it is nuclear they should be worrying about, not wind.
Boswall's thread points out the key engineering issue of the lifetime costs of any engineered product (for those of you that haven't had to deal with it). PV is simpler, cheaper and less lifetime costs from an installation, running and maintenance point of view.
Against this (as alluded to in the transmission cost) is that solar is in the wrong place for the UK. But if the North Africans decide to set up a grid with the Southern Europeans, you could see an energy cascade northwards. They will have to allow for the NIMBYs that don't like HV transmission lines in their area - a real issue in the UK.
It's a useful contribution to the debate and domestic energy storage (Tesla batteries or even a Tesla) looks like another additional area for future building regulation, if GCH is to be banned. I say that as someone who made their living out of the polluting coal power stations and the even more polluting nuclear.
I have no comment to make on wind - people know my view on that.
But I will say more generally that UK energy policy is in my view heavily led by lobbyists and interest groups - as well as the overall direction of travel being to tick emissions boxes, not generate plentiful, inexpensive energy.
Therefore it is entirely predictable that we would choose the least efficient form of power generation, because greater the inefficiency, the greater money someone is making out of it. We tend to think of 'Government waste' just going into a metaphorical toilet, and nobody would mind if it stopped. Of course, that isn't the case. It actually goes into another organisation's pockets, and those organisations have the resources and influence to keep it that way.
I am not being fatalistic - I really do believe the next Government will start the journey of serious reform that the country needs. But they need to understand broadly that there will be fierce opposition from those who like the current set up - not just for ideological reasons but for profound commercial ones.
For some strange reason, Brits like burning things (coal, gas, nuclear fuel) as they choose to buy poorly insulated shoddily built homes. Perhaps its a weather thing. If we had to cope with months of sub-zero temperatures, we might pay a bit more attention to insulation rather than generation.
It has nothing to do with 'Brits', who have very little choice over what gets 'burned', or frankly how well houses are insulated - most of us count ourselves lucky to own one.
Our parlous situation relates to successive Governments' energy policies being the result of the desire by decision makers to be feted at climate conferences, and being at it.
May I gently point out that polluting power stations and shoddily built homes pre-date the current phenomenon of climate conferences. You appear to be taking a current hobby-horse and extrapolating backwards.
I grant you there is though a Cnut-like approach to the economics of green energy, making it far more expensive that it needs to be to preserve certain status quo but this is recent. Dr Dieter Helm is you man for this.
I can't imagine that Streeting could become leader if its he who's rocked the boat. Were Starmer to stand down and support Streeting as his successor then he has a good chance.
Rayner is favourite in my view - but again I don't think that were she to try a coup it'd go down well.
It's very hard to see a path for Burnham.
But there are a lot of others - it feels to me that the likes of Torsten Bell and Peter Kyle could well be harbouring ambitions (Very thin info)
If Burnham still harboured future Labour leadership ambitions surely he would tried to return to Parliament at the last GE?
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Not on X so can't read the replies but the advantage of wind is that it blows at night. And more in the winter time when energy consumption is likely to be highest. And although solar may still be cheaper the transmission costs from, eg, the Sahara to here would be massive. Given where we are on the globe I think we have made the right choice. If anyone wants to worry about the base cost of our electricity for manufacturing it is nuclear they should be worrying about, not wind.
Yes, that's what killed the Xlinks project (along with security concerns).
The point of the argument isn't that wind power is probably a big part of our best energy option - which it likely is - it's that year round solar for the majority of generation in (eg) Arizona or Saudi is going to be less than a third of the cost.
Solar panels are dirt cheap. And getting cheaper. The expensive part is the grid connection, the power converter electronics and battery storage.
If you need 4x as many panels (because it’s the U.K.), the rest of the system stays the same. You only need more panels. Which are dirt cheap.
So a solar farm in the UK will cost little more than one in Morocco. Certainly, the difference will be orders of magnitude less than building and maintaining an inter-continental cable.
Yes. On a related point about solar farms on agricultural land, which I think a ridiculous objection, I calculated you could replicate the entire current electricity production of the UK as solar panels and still only take up 0.5% of agricultural land.
Having said that, current and planned wind farms are a cost effective means of energy generation and better than anything else except solar.
My illusions about Anthony Wells have been shattered by all those photos. He is now in my head as half Jeremy Corbyn, half David Bellamy - fortunately without the rabbit suit from The Goodies.
This is what I always think of Anthony as looking like, from the days of UKPollingReport.
All these Norwegians running up this mountain are making me feel old. Especially the ones that are also old. Time to have a fiddle with the phone...
I've never felt older than when Korean septuagenarians were passing me on the way up Hallasan. A couple of ajummas stopped in passing to offer tangerines.
I remember walking up Ayers Rock (back when you could) and I was passed by a guy jogging up there ... backwards. I was more irritated than impressed. Why do that?
Of course votes at 16 will make for a more easily manipulated, more gullible electorate. But excuse me a moment. Labour said it was going to introduce this, quite clearly, in its manifesto last year. Yet millions of grown-up voters used their ballots to help Labour into power, directly or indirectly. They’re in no position to sneer at 16-year-olds for being too immature, impulsive and easily led to be allowed to vote.
That's not quite fair.
Of course they played a part, but it wasn't just immaturity, impulsivity and gullibility Millions of people voted for Labour not because they were manipulated and gullible, but out of their own self-interest.
Benefit-scroungers, public sector workers, net zero nutters and trade unionists expecting huge pay rises are obvious examples.
Under FPTP what you vote against is at least as important as anything you may want to vote for... and whatever else people were doing, they were voting against the Conservative party, and are continuing to do so.
Tactical voting will likely be against Reform more than the Tories next time.
Speaking of Reform, Farage now on Kuenssberg
Tacticals versus Reform will become increasingly effective the further below a national 30% Reform drop. If they are over 30% nationally then it will need to be extreme levels of tactical voting to stop them (if the rest are in the ballpark of current levels) If they get 27% (say) I think they'll lose many many seats to a tactical push
Perhaps but in Canada this year Poilevre's Conservatives got 41% but even then still lost due to massive tactical voting for Carney's Liberals who got 43%
Well, yes, that's why I said it would require extreme levels of tactical voting - and in Canada there is only one other party (outside Quebec) with any sort of decent support to farm. Its like the UK pre 2015. Here we have Lab, Con, LD and Green at/near 10% or higher
In the 89 Labour seats where Reform came second, there are not many Lib Dem and Green voters left to squeeze. There are, however, quite a lot of Conservatives, who would more likely break for Reform than for Labour.
Depends, in Sunderland Central for example, Reform's 49th target seat, Labour were first and Reform second last year.
The LDs and Greens got 16% combined, the Tories 14%
What hypothetical polls do tell us is that significant sections of the voting public are not happy with what is on offer from existing parties.
With such multiple different political currents around we either need an electoral system that treats multiple parties fairly, or genuine democracy within the major parties. Tories, Labour and Reform are all led very much top down, with little or no grass roots say on policy or direction.
And thank the Lord for that. If you think the leadership are delusional, stupid and plain ignorant, have a look at the membership. Who twice voted for Corbyn. Who voted for IDS and Liz Truss. Who support Farage no matter what. The idea that the membership of any of these parties should be let near policy is frankly frightening.
Policy shouldn't purely be based on activists, but neither should their opinions be ignored outside leadership contests. The same too for backbenchers.
I haven't been a member of a political party for more than 30 years. I just never see the point. They really don't care what you think. You have no right to even be listened to. You are just a cashpoint for other peoples' ambitions. The one thing you get in most parties (not Farage's vehicles, of course) is the right to vote for the leadership. And the membership have proven themselves to be consistently useless at that.
I have been a member of the LibDems for 12 or so years, and there is real consultation of the members over issues, so internal democracy is possible.
How did the consultation over student fees go? The wording of the Pledge was:
"I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.”
Good point. The Paul Marshall Orange Bookers were in charge. It was an exceptional betrayal of trust. The party lost 37 of its 43 seats in the next election in 2015. I resigned from the party, and I'm a very active activist. I hope the lesson has been learned by the Lib Dem leadership. Also about coalitions.
I wasn't 'active' by then although I had been from about 1970 until 1995. The student fees volte face was a shocker. To be fair, I never liked Clegg very much; preferred Kennedy or Campbell, particularly the former. If only he hadn't turned to drink!
Clegg did at least get his party into power, not just as a party of protest like the latter two
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
The Labour party would first need to change its constitution. To get on the leadership ballot, a candidate must be a sitting MP
Indeed, any party member in good standing should be eligible. I don't understand why you would have a selection system that may exclude the best candidate for the role. The small parties don't seem to have this problem.
As party leader, sure. In Burnhams case, I think trying to foist him on us as our PM before he had a seat in the Commons would be the electoral end of the Labour Party and he'd probably very likely lose any by election - the opposition would put up a unity candidate under some sort of 'stop the outrage!' banner Telling HMK not a single one of your 400 MPs can govern and it has to be 'some dude' would also be constitutionally interesting
Why? An MP is a legislator, not a trainee PM. Surely having a regional/devolved "executive" role is better experience for being PM than a backbench MP or even shad cab minister. If SKS were to step down now, most of the candidates would have only 1 year cabinet experience.
I've already said it is theoretically possible. If they want to try it, i've said what i think the consequences would be.
X, by contrast, is SEVENTY times bigger than this.
98.73% of those "users" are (fascist) bots
TwiX is an intellectual dead end (for fascists)
Bluesky is doomed. Face it. Musk won this battle
You’re better off fighting new battles elsewhere, but seeing as this is you, I doubt you will heed my advice
Why are you so obsessed with Bluesky failing?
If you don't want to use it then don't.
I enjoy seeing lefties in pain. That's it. That's my only reason
I particularly enjoy seeing Bluesky lefties in pain because they are such smug, wanky little pricks
Bluesky is lefties and liberals smugly chatting to each other without having to worry about being contaminated with any rightwingers arguing with them as they started to get on X.
If Reform win the next general election Bluesky will be like the late film critic Pauline Kael who reacted to Nixon's landslide win in 1972 over her favoured candidate McGovern “How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him”.
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Not on X so can't read the replies but the advantage of wind is that it blows at night. And more in the winter time when energy consumption is likely to be highest. And although solar may still be cheaper the transmission costs from, eg, the Sahara to here would be massive. Given where we are on the globe I think we have made the right choice. If anyone wants to worry about the base cost of our electricity for manufacturing it is nuclear they should be worrying about, not wind.
Yes, that's what killed the Xlinks project (along with security concerns).
The point of the argument isn't that wind power is probably a big part of our best energy option - which it likely is - it's that year round solar for the majority of generation in (eg) Arizona or Saudi is going to be less than a third of the cost.
Solar panels are dirt cheap. And getting cheaper. The expensive part is the grid connection, the power converter electronics and battery storage.
If you need 4x as many panels (because it’s the U.K.), the rest of the system stays the same. You only need more panels. Which are dirt cheap.
So a solar farm in the UK will cost little more than one in Morocco. Certainly, the difference will be orders of magnitude less than building and maintaining an inter-continental cable.
Yes. On a related point about solar farms on agricultural land, which I think a ridiculous objection, I calculated you could replicate the entire current electricity production of the UK as solar panels and still only take up 0.5% of agricultural land.
Having said that, current and planned wind farms are a cost effective means of energy generation and better than anything else except solar.
This article talks about battery storage auctions in China averaging about £50 per MWh. As a comparison, day ahead prices in the UK for gas generation are about twice that, this being the direct alternative. We are in now in the situation where we can get completely off fossil fuels for electricity generation.
I read that interesting thread on wind and solar, and the answer to Britain’s dilemma jumped out at me.
What about if we found some locations close to the equator, and in the Southern hemisphere, where the locals were up for doing some sort of deal to give us control over the land in exchange for trade and protection? And if they weren’t willing, we could take it by force. Then we could build loads of solar generation there, and the industries to make use of it.
Empire of the Sun.
Presumably, supply chains being what they are, if electricity becomes almost free in equatorial regions then It’ll become economic to produce vast amounts of green hydrogen and ship it north, just like the gulf ships us LNG at the moment.
We have unfortunately just turned down the Octopus / Sahara deal wind/solar ("'to promote domestic renewables'), which would have accounted for approximately 10GW of supply.
X, by contrast, is SEVENTY times bigger than this.
98.73% of those "users" are (fascist) bots
TwiX is an intellectual dead end (for fascists)
Bluesky is doomed. Face it. Musk won this battle
You’re better off fighting new battles elsewhere, but seeing as this is you, I doubt you will heed my advice
Why are you so obsessed with Bluesky failing?
If you don't want to use it then don't.
I enjoy seeing lefties in pain. That's it. That's my only reason
I particularly enjoy seeing Bluesky lefties in pain because they are such smug, wanky little pricks
Bluesky is lefties and liberals smugly chatting to each other with not having to worry about being contaminated with any rightwingers arguing with them as they started to get on X.
If Reform win the next general election Bluesky will be like the late film critic Pauline Kael who reacted to Nixon's win in 1972 over her favoured candidate McGovern “How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him”
Bluesky will become what is was always likely to become. A sad lefty ghetto
The problem is conceptual: it was founded exactly as that. A safe space for lefties, fleeing X
Then they realised that only lefties were coming over, and there was no one to debate or argue with, no diversity of thought, and so it could not grow properly. So they made half-arsed attempts to lure rightwingers and centrists, but by then the culture was cemented in place: bitter, angry, lefty, deluded, humourless, full of "people" like @Scott_xP, and furiously intolerent of any deviation from Woke Maximalism
Not exactly inviting, so no one accepted the invitation, and so it slowly dies. It cannot recover now
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
The Labour party would first need to change its constitution. To get on the leadership ballot, a candidate must be a sitting MP
Indeed, any party member in good standing should be eligible. I don't understand why you would have a selection system that may exclude the best candidate for the role. The small parties don't seem to have this problem.
As party leader, sure. In Burnhams case, I think trying to foist him on us as our PM before he had a seat in the Commons would be the electoral end of the Labour Party and he'd probably very likely lose any by election - the opposition would put up a unity candidate under some sort of 'stop the outrage!' banner Telling HMK not a single one of your 400 MPs can govern and it has to be 'some dude' would also be constitutionally interesting
Why? An MP is a legislator, not a trainee PM. Surely having a regional/devolved "executive" role is better experience for being PM than a backbench MP or even shad cab minister. If SKS were to step down now, most of the candidates would have only 1 year cabinet experience.
I've already said it is theoretically possible. If they want to try it, i've said what i think the consequences would be.
There would be no by election, if Burnham was elected Labour PM it would be as like the Liberals in Canada under Trudeau they had been heading for landslide defeat and Starmer like Trudeau had resigned.
Burnham would call a snap general election as soon as he was elected, just as Carney did
When this is all over, Britain will have spent well over £10B of its scarce 'new things' budget for essentially no long term gain (likely a huge long term loss). No new infra, no economic benefits. Just a whole load of hotel rooms rented for a half decade and £10B+ more debt."
X, by contrast, is SEVENTY times bigger than this.
98.73% of those "users" are (fascist) bots
TwiX is an intellectual dead end (for fascists)
Bluesky is doomed. Face it. Musk won this battle
You’re better off fighting new battles elsewhere, but seeing as this is you, I doubt you will heed my advice
Why are you so obsessed with Bluesky failing?
If you don't want to use it then don't.
I enjoy seeing lefties in pain. That's it. That's my only reason
I particularly enjoy seeing Bluesky lefties in pain because they are such smug, wanky little pricks
Bluesky is lefties and liberals smugly chatting to each other with not having to worry about being contaminated with any rightwingers arguing with them as they started to get on X.
If Reform win the next general election Bluesky will be like the late film critic Pauline Kael who reacted to Nixon's win in 1972 over her favoured candidate McGovern “How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him”
Bluesky will become what is was always likely to become. A sad lefty ghetto
The problem is conceptual: it was founded exactly as that. A safe space for lefties, fleeing X
Then they realised that only lefties were coming over, and there was no one to debate or argue with, no diversity of thought, and so it could not grow properly. So they made half-arsed attempts to lure rightwingers and centrists, but by then the culture was cemented in place: bitter, angry, lefty, deluded, humourless, full of "people" like @Scott_xP, and furiously intolerent of any deviation from Woke Maximalism
Not exactly inviting, so no one accepted the invitation, and so it slowly dies. It cannot recover now
No, unless it charges said lefties a fortune to subscribe to it and they agree to pay
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Not on X so can't read the replies but the advantage of wind is that it blows at night. And more in the winter time when energy consumption is likely to be highest. And although solar may still be cheaper the transmission costs from, eg, the Sahara to here would be massive. Given where we are on the globe I think we have made the right choice. If anyone wants to worry about the base cost of our electricity for manufacturing it is nuclear they should be worrying about, not wind.
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Not on X so can't read the replies but the advantage of wind is that it blows at night. And more in the winter time when energy consumption is likely to be highest. And although solar may still be cheaper the transmission costs from, eg, the Sahara to here would be massive. Given where we are on the globe I think we have made the right choice. If anyone wants to worry about the base cost of our electricity for manufacturing it is nuclear they should be worrying about, not wind.
Boswall's thread points out the key engineering issue of the lifetime costs of any engineered product (for those of you that haven't had to deal with it). PV is simpler, cheaper and less lifetime costs from an installation, running and maintenance point of view.
Against this (as alluded to in the transmission cost) is that solar is in the wrong place for the UK. But if the North Africans decide to set up a grid with the Southern Europeans, you could see an energy cascade northwards. They will have to allow for the NIMBYs that don't like HV transmission lines in their area - a real issue in the UK.
It's a useful contribution to the debate and domestic energy storage (Tesla batteries or even a Tesla) looks like another additional area for future building regulation, if GCH is to be banned. I say that as someone who made their living out of the polluting coal power stations and the even more polluting nuclear.
I have no comment to make on wind - people know my view on that.
But I will say more generally that UK energy policy is in my view heavily led by lobbyists and interest groups - as well as the overall direction of travel being to tick emissions boxes, not generate plentiful, inexpensive energy.
Therefore it is entirely predictable that we would choose the least efficient form of power generation, because greater the inefficiency, the greater money someone is making out of it. We tend to think of 'Government waste' just going into a metaphorical toilet, and nobody would mind if it stopped. Of course, that isn't the case. It actually goes into another organisation's pockets, and those organisations have the resources and influence to keep it that way.
I am not being fatalistic - I really do believe the next Government will start the journey of serious reform that the country needs. But they need to understand broadly that there will be fierce opposition from those who like the current set up - not just for ideological reasons but for profound commercial ones.
For some strange reason, Brits like burning things (coal, gas, nuclear fuel) as they choose to buy poorly insulated shoddily built homes. Perhaps its a weather thing. If we had to cope with months of sub-zero temperatures, we might pay a bit more attention to insulation rather than generation.
Not true.
Modern homes are built very well insulated.
We moved a few years ago from a damp, poorly insulated home we were letting to a modern new build that we own. At the time of bills rising rapidly.
Our gas bill fell as a result. Despite the massively higher gas price, we now use so little of it compared to before that we are paying less.
The problem isn't new homes. The problem is the damp, poorly insulated stock of old homes, combined with the absence of sufficient numbers of new homes.
Its a lot easier to build to modern standards when you build a modern home, than it is to retrofit old homes.
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
The Labour party would first need to change its constitution. To get on the leadership ballot, a candidate must be a sitting MP
Indeed, any party member in good standing should be eligible. I don't understand why you would have a selection system that may exclude the best candidate for the role. The small parties don't seem to have this problem.
As party leader, sure. In Burnhams case, I think trying to foist him on us as our PM before he had a seat in the Commons would be the electoral end of the Labour Party and he'd probably very likely lose any by election - the opposition would put up a unity candidate under some sort of 'stop the outrage!' banner Telling HMK not a single one of your 400 MPs can govern and it has to be 'some dude' would also be constitutionally interesting
Why? An MP is a legislator, not a trainee PM. Surely having a regional/devolved "executive" role is better experience for being PM than a backbench MP or even shad cab minister. If SKS were to step down now, most of the candidates would have only 1 year cabinet experience.
I've already said it is theoretically possible. If they want to try it, i've said what i think the consequences would be.
There would be no by election, if Burnham was elected Labour PM it would be as like the Liberals in Canada under Trudeau they had been heading for landslide defeat and Starmer like Trudeau had resigned.
Burnham would call a snap general election as soon as he was elected, just as Carney did
Carney was elected Liberal leader before Trudeau resigned and he became PM. Burnham has no route to the Labour leadership currently.
Edit - burnham isnt being sent for unless he wins the leadership. He currently cannot
This is fun on a Sunday morning Praise for Tucker Carlson! Who'd have thought? No one cares anymore who is called an anti semite. infact it's now a badge of honour.. The alternative is to be thought a genocidal maniac....Oh except for Starmer who wouldn't know one if it bit him on the bum..........
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
The Labour party would first need to change its constitution. To get on the leadership ballot, a candidate must be a sitting MP
Indeed, any party member in good standing should be eligible. I don't understand why you would have a selection system that may exclude the best candidate for the role. The small parties don't seem to have this problem.
As party leader, sure. In Burnhams case, I think trying to foist him on us as our PM before he had a seat in the Commons would be the electoral end of the Labour Party and he'd probably very likely lose any by election - the opposition would put up a unity candidate under some sort of 'stop the outrage!' banner Telling HMK not a single one of your 400 MPs can govern and it has to be 'some dude' would also be constitutionally interesting
Why? An MP is a legislator, not a trainee PM. Surely having a regional/devolved "executive" role is better experience for being PM than a backbench MP or even shad cab minister. If SKS were to step down now, most of the candidates would have only 1 year cabinet experience.
I've already said it is theoretically possible. If they want to try it, i've said what i think the consequences would be.
There would be no by election, if Burnham was elected Labour PM it would be as like the Liberals in Canada under Trudeau they had been heading for landslide defeat and Starmer like Trudeau had resigned.
Burnham would call a snap general election as soon as he was elected, just as Carney did
Carney was elected Liberal leader before Trudeau resigned and he became PM. Burnham has no route to the Labour leadership currently.
Trudeau announced his resignation before Carney stood for Liberal leader, Trudeau only officially resigned as PM after that but he had resigned as Liberal leader well before that
Of course votes at 16 will make for a more easily manipulated, more gullible electorate. But excuse me a moment. Labour said it was going to introduce this, quite clearly, in its manifesto last year. Yet millions of grown-up voters used their ballots to help Labour into power, directly or indirectly. They’re in no position to sneer at 16-year-olds for being too immature, impulsive and easily led to be allowed to vote.
That's not quite fair.
Of course they played a part, but it wasn't just immaturity, impulsivity and gullibility Millions of people voted for Labour not because they were manipulated and gullible, but out of their own self-interest.
Benefit-scroungers, public sector workers, net zero nutters and trade unionists expecting huge pay rises are obvious examples.
Under FPTP what you vote against is at least as important as anything you may want to vote for... and whatever else people were doing, they were voting against the Conservative party, and are continuing to do so.
Tactical voting will likely be against Reform more than the Tories next time.
Speaking of Reform, Farage now on Kuenssberg
I'm catching up on this.
Really I'm not very convinced by the studio design; the chairs for Farage, Davey, Reed, and Wotsit are like the model chairs we used to make out of egg boxes at primary school. That will get savaged in memoirs in a few years' time.
Burnham only becomes PM if Labour have changed their rules for leader and he wins OR he becomes an MP first and wins the leadership
If Starmer resigns Labour elect their leader under their current rules by their party membership, just as the Canadian Liberals elected Carney via a membership vote
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
The Labour party would first need to change its constitution. To get on the leadership ballot, a candidate must be a sitting MP
Indeed, any party member in good standing should be eligible. I don't understand why you would have a selection system that may exclude the best candidate for the role. The small parties don't seem to have this problem.
As party leader, sure. In Burnhams case, I think trying to foist him on us as our PM before he had a seat in the Commons would be the electoral end of the Labour Party and he'd probably very likely lose any by election - the opposition would put up a unity candidate under some sort of 'stop the outrage!' banner Telling HMK not a single one of your 400 MPs can govern and it has to be 'some dude' would also be constitutionally interesting
Why? An MP is a legislator, not a trainee PM. Surely having a regional/devolved "executive" role is better experience for being PM than a backbench MP or even shad cab minister. If SKS were to step down now, most of the candidates would have only 1 year cabinet experience.
I've already said it is theoretically possible. If they want to try it, i've said what i think the consequences would be.
There would be no by election, if Burnham was elected Labour PM it would be as like the Liberals in Canada under Trudeau they had been heading for landslide defeat and Starmer like Trudeau had resigned.
Burnham would call a snap general election as soon as he was elected, just as Carney did
Carney was elected Liberal leader before Trudeau resigned and he became PM. Burnham has no route to the Labour leadership currently.
Trudeau announced his resignation before Carney stood for Liberal leader, Trudeau only officially resigned as PM after that but he had resigned as Liberal leader well before that
But he was still PM until he resigned, which is the point. How does Burnham run as Labour leader when hes not an MP?
"‘Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King Jr said that, a man I’d hope Isla Bumba, NHS Fife’s equality and human rights lead officer, had heard of, considering her job is improving diversity. Although given Bumba admitted last week that she wasn’t entirely sure if she was a woman, it’s probably best not to make assumptions."
Burnham only becomes PM if Labour have changed their rules for leader and he wins OR he becomes an MP first and wins the leadership
If Starmer resigns Labour elect their leader under their current rules by their party membership, just as the Canadian Liberals elected Carney via a membership vote
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
The Labour party would first need to change its constitution. To get on the leadership ballot, a candidate must be a sitting MP
Indeed, any party member in good standing should be eligible. I don't understand why you would have a selection system that may exclude the best candidate for the role. The small parties don't seem to have this problem.
As party leader, sure. In Burnhams case, I think trying to foist him on us as our PM before he had a seat in the Commons would be the electoral end of the Labour Party and he'd probably very likely lose any by election - the opposition would put up a unity candidate under some sort of 'stop the outrage!' banner Telling HMK not a single one of your 400 MPs can govern and it has to be 'some dude' would also be constitutionally interesting
Why? An MP is a legislator, not a trainee PM. Surely having a regional/devolved "executive" role is better experience for being PM than a backbench MP or even shad cab minister. If SKS were to step down now, most of the candidates would have only 1 year cabinet experience.
I've already said it is theoretically possible. If they want to try it, i've said what i think the consequences would be.
There would be no by election, if Burnham was elected Labour PM it would be as like the Liberals in Canada under Trudeau they had been heading for landslide defeat and Starmer like Trudeau had resigned.
Burnham would call a snap general election as soon as he was elected, just as Carney did
Carney was elected Liberal leader before Trudeau resigned and he became PM. Burnham has no route to the Labour leadership currently.
Trudeau announced his resignation before Carney stood for Liberal leader, Trudeau only officially resigned as PM after that but he had resigned as Liberal leader well before that
But he was still PM until he resigned, which is the point. How does Burnham run as Labour leader when hes not an MP?
As Starmer would be PM until Burnham was elected Labour leader in this scenario, Starmer having already resigned as Labour leader.
There is no requirement for the Labour leader or even the PM to be an MP as long as the former wins most votes of the Labour membership and the latter is able to command the support of a majority of MPs in Parliament
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Not on X so can't read the replies but the advantage of wind is that it blows at night. And more in the winter time when energy consumption is likely to be highest. And although solar may still be cheaper the transmission costs from, eg, the Sahara to here would be massive. Given where we are on the globe I think we have made the right choice. If anyone wants to worry about the base cost of our electricity for manufacturing it is nuclear they should be worrying about, not wind.
Yes, that's what killed the Xlinks project (along with security concerns).
The point of the argument isn't that wind power is probably a big part of our best energy option - which it likely is - it's that year round solar for the majority of generation in (eg) Arizona or Saudi is going to be less than a third of the cost.
Solar panels are dirt cheap. And getting cheaper. The expensive part is the grid connection, the power converter electronics and battery storage.
If you need 4x as many panels (because it’s the U.K.), the rest of the system stays the same. You only need more panels. Which are dirt cheap.
So a solar farm in the UK will cost little more than one in Morocco. Certainly, the difference will be orders of magnitude less than building and maintaining an inter-continental cable.
Yes. On a related point about solar farms on agricultural land, which I think a ridiculous objection, I calculated you could replicate the entire current electricity production of the UK as solar panels and still only take up 0.5% of agricultural land.
Having said that, current and planned wind farms are a cost effective means of energy generation and better than anything else except solar.
This article talks about battery storage auctions in China averaging about £50 per MWh. As a comparison, day ahead prices in the UK for gas generation are about twice that, this being the direct alternative. We are in now in the situation where we can get completely off fossil fuels for electricity generation.
Which is fine for all year round solar, where your battery storage needs to cover less than 24hrs.
A northerly country where winter insolation is less than a sixth of the summer amount (which weather can bring down to almost nil) has to rely on wind for peak seasonal (winter) demand.
And wind variability means you need a lot more than 24hrs of battery storage - so the effective cost is a lot higher.
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Good morning PB!
That is a very good thread. Kind of a model of what a great X thread can be: lucid, sharp, pointed, brisk, highly educational. Like a presentation online, illustrated with graphs
And yes: looks like we need nuclear
At the prices we're building it for, it's no help. If we sort that out, possibly.
Talking of X threads, why on earth is the site using Bluesky?
Bluesky is dying on its arse. It is folding. It is perishing. It is banjaxed
I read the other day that it is now down to 600,000 regular users. X, by contrast, is SEVENTY times bigger than this. There is no contest; Bluesky has failed
No one goes on Bluesky anymore apart from a rabble of whining lefties, a couple of stubborn celebs (tho even they are slinking back to X) plus a few voyeuristic rightwingers who go on there to laugh at the inmates, like posh people touring Bedlam in 1810
I run an informal analysis on here. Which platform is the bigger source of interesting threads linked here? At the moment both, but more from Bluesky than X, which you sort of concede in your previous comment ("Kind of a model of what a great X thread can be"). Nobody seems to say anything interesting on Threads, which claims to equal X in reach.
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
The Labour party would first need to change its constitution. To get on the leadership ballot, a candidate must be a sitting MP
Indeed, any party member in good standing should be eligible. I don't understand why you would have a selection system that may exclude the best candidate for the role. The small parties don't seem to have this problem.
As party leader, sure. In Burnhams case, I think trying to foist him on us as our PM before he had a seat in the Commons would be the electoral end of the Labour Party and he'd probably very likely lose any by election - the opposition would put up a unity candidate under some sort of 'stop the outrage!' banner Telling HMK not a single one of your 400 MPs can govern and it has to be 'some dude' would also be constitutionally interesting
Why? An MP is a legislator, not a trainee PM. Surely having a regional/devolved "executive" role is better experience for being PM than a backbench MP or even shad cab minister. If SKS were to step down now, most of the candidates would have only 1 year cabinet experience.
I've already said it is theoretically possible. If they want to try it, i've said what i think the consequences would be.
There would be no by election, if Burnham was elected Labour PM it would be as like the Liberals in Canada under Trudeau they had been heading for landslide defeat and Starmer like Trudeau had resigned.
Burnham would call a snap general election as soon as he was elected, just as Carney did
Carney was elected Liberal leader before Trudeau resigned and he became PM. Burnham has no route to the Labour leadership currently.
Trudeau announced his resignation before Carney stood for Liberal leader, Trudeau only officially resigned as PM after that but he had resigned as Liberal leader well before that
But he was still PM until he resigned, which is the point. How does Burnham run as Labour leader when hes not an MP?
As Starmer would be PM until Burnham was elected Labour leader in this scenario, Starmer having already resigned as Labour leader.
There is no requirement for the Labour leader to be an MP
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Not on X so can't read the replies but the advantage of wind is that it blows at night. And more in the winter time when energy consumption is likely to be highest. And although solar may still be cheaper the transmission costs from, eg, the Sahara to here would be massive. Given where we are on the globe I think we have made the right choice. If anyone wants to worry about the base cost of our electricity for manufacturing it is nuclear they should be worrying about, not wind.
Yes, that's what killed the Xlinks project (along with security concerns).
The point of the argument isn't that wind power is probably a big part of our best energy option - which it likely is - it's that year round solar for the majority of generation in (eg) Arizona or Saudi is going to be less than a third of the cost.
Solar panels are dirt cheap. And getting cheaper. The expensive part is the grid connection, the power converter electronics and battery storage.
If you need 4x as many panels (because it’s the U.K.), the rest of the system stays the same. You only need more panels. Which are dirt cheap.
So a solar farm in the UK will cost little more than one in Morocco. Certainly, the difference will be orders of magnitude less than building and maintaining an inter-continental cable.
Yes. On a related point about solar farms on agricultural land, which I think a ridiculous objection, I calculated you could replicate the entire current electricity production of the UK as solar panels and still only take up 0.5% of agricultural land.
Having said that, current and planned wind farms are a cost effective means of energy generation and better than anything else except solar.
This article talks about battery storage auctions in China averaging about £50 per MWh. As a comparison, day ahead prices in the UK for gas generation are about twice that, this being the direct alternative. We are in now in the situation where we can get completely off fossil fuels for electricity generation.
Which is fine for all year round solar, where your battery storage needs to cover less than 24hrs.
A northerly country where winter insolation is less than a sixth of the summer amount (which weather can bring down to almost nil) has to rely on wind for peak seasonal (winter) demand.
And wind variability means you need a lot more than 24hrs of battery storage - so the effective cost is a lot higher.
Not to forget our energy demand peaks in winter, when solar is next to useless compared to summer.
Solar is nice to have but not the solution in the UK. It is however supplementary to wind, which dips in the summer when solar peaks, so that's a nice bonus too.
Burnham only becomes PM if Labour have changed their rules for leader and he wins OR he becomes an MP first and wins the leadership
If Starmer resigns Labour elect their leader under their current rules by their party membership, just as the Canadian Liberals elected Carney via a membership vote
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Not on X so can't read the replies but the advantage of wind is that it blows at night. And more in the winter time when energy consumption is likely to be highest. And although solar may still be cheaper the transmission costs from, eg, the Sahara to here would be massive. Given where we are on the globe I think we have made the right choice. If anyone wants to worry about the base cost of our electricity for manufacturing it is nuclear they should be worrying about, not wind.
Yes, that's what killed the Xlinks project (along with security concerns).
The point of the argument isn't that wind power is probably a big part of our best energy option - which it likely is - it's that year round solar for the majority of generation in (eg) Arizona or Saudi is going to be less than a third of the cost.
Solar panels are dirt cheap. And getting cheaper. The expensive part is the grid connection, the power converter electronics and battery storage.
If you need 4x as many panels (because it’s the U.K.), the rest of the system stays the same. You only need more panels. Which are dirt cheap.
So a solar farm in the UK will cost little more than one in Morocco. Certainly, the difference will be orders of magnitude less than building and maintaining an inter-continental cable.
Yes. On a related point about solar farms on agricultural land, which I think a ridiculous objection, I calculated you could replicate the entire current electricity production of the UK as solar panels and still only take up 0.5% of agricultural land.
Having said that, current and planned wind farms are a cost effective means of energy generation and better than anything else except solar.
Solar or wind, the problem is the national grid is not up to the job of transferring electricity round the country. That is why it costs hundreds of millions of pounds, if not billions, to pay generators not to generate. That is why solar farm developers want subsidised access to the grid which in turn is why nimbys object to new cables.
The national grid was developed on the assumption power stations were near towns, not halfway up a mountain or in the middle of the North Sea.
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
The Labour party would first need to change its constitution. To get on the leadership ballot, a candidate must be a sitting MP
Indeed, any party member in good standing should be eligible. I don't understand why you would have a selection system that may exclude the best candidate for the role. The small parties don't seem to have this problem.
As party leader, sure. In Burnhams case, I think trying to foist him on us as our PM before he had a seat in the Commons would be the electoral end of the Labour Party and he'd probably very likely lose any by election - the opposition would put up a unity candidate under some sort of 'stop the outrage!' banner Telling HMK not a single one of your 400 MPs can govern and it has to be 'some dude' would also be constitutionally interesting
Why? An MP is a legislator, not a trainee PM. Surely having a regional/devolved "executive" role is better experience for being PM than a backbench MP or even shad cab minister. If SKS were to step down now, most of the candidates would have only 1 year cabinet experience.
I've already said it is theoretically possible. If they want to try it, i've said what i think the consequences would be.
There would be no by election, if Burnham was elected Labour PM it would be as like the Liberals in Canada under Trudeau they had been heading for landslide defeat and Starmer like Trudeau had resigned.
Burnham would call a snap general election as soon as he was elected, just as Carney did
Carney was elected Liberal leader before Trudeau resigned and he became PM. Burnham has no route to the Labour leadership currently.
Trudeau announced his resignation before Carney stood for Liberal leader, Trudeau only officially resigned as PM after that but he had resigned as Liberal leader well before that
But he was still PM until he resigned, which is the point. How does Burnham run as Labour leader when hes not an MP?
As Starmer would be PM until Burnham was elected Labour leader in this scenario, Starmer having already resigned as Labour leader.
There is no requirement for the Labour leader to be an MP
Burnham only becomes PM if Labour have changed their rules for leader and he wins OR he becomes an MP first and wins the leadership
If Starmer resigns Labour elect their leader under their current rules by their party membership, just as the Canadian Liberals elected Carney via a membership vote
Burnham only becomes PM if Labour have changed their rules for leader and he wins OR he becomes an MP first and wins the leadership
If Starmer resigns Labour elect their leader under their current rules by their party membership, just as the Canadian Liberals elected Carney via a membership vote
'Candidates seeking to enter the ballot must be an MP'
Not the Labour leadership rules, if you read them there is no requirement I can see to be an MP to stand for Labour leader, just to be nominated by 20% of the PLP.
I think the Commons Library just assumed that without checking
‘I’ve had enough of the pie faced centrist in hock to lobbyists and running scared of anything vaguely progressive. Who we need is Wes Streeting!’
Said no one except Wes Streeting.
Indeed
Replies under the tweet point out that Streeting has a majority sub-1000 (is that true? Haven’t checked) and is highly likely to lose his seat next GE
Why should that be a problem? The PM doesn't need to be an MP, he will simply promote someone in a safe seat to the Lords and win the subsequent by-election.
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
The Labour party would first need to change its constitution. To get on the leadership ballot, a candidate must be a sitting MP
Indeed, any party member in good standing should be eligible. I don't understand why you would have a selection system that may exclude the best candidate for the role. The small parties don't seem to have this problem.
As party leader, sure. In Burnhams case, I think trying to foist him on us as our PM before he had a seat in the Commons would be the electoral end of the Labour Party and he'd probably very likely lose any by election - the opposition would put up a unity candidate under some sort of 'stop the outrage!' banner Telling HMK not a single one of your 400 MPs can govern and it has to be 'some dude' would also be constitutionally interesting
Why? An MP is a legislator, not a trainee PM. Surely having a regional/devolved "executive" role is better experience for being PM than a backbench MP or even shad cab minister. If SKS were to step down now, most of the candidates would have only 1 year cabinet experience.
I've already said it is theoretically possible. If they want to try it, i've said what i think the consequences would be.
There would be no by election, if Burnham was elected Labour PM it would be as like the Liberals in Canada under Trudeau they had been heading for landslide defeat and Starmer like Trudeau had resigned.
Burnham would call a snap general election as soon as he was elected, just as Carney did
Carney was elected Liberal leader before Trudeau resigned and he became PM. Burnham has no route to the Labour leadership currently.
Trudeau announced his resignation before Carney stood for Liberal leader, Trudeau only officially resigned as PM after that but he had resigned as Liberal leader well before that
But he was still PM until he resigned, which is the point. How does Burnham run as Labour leader when hes not an MP?
As Starmer would be PM until Burnham was elected Labour leader in this scenario, Starmer having already resigned as Labour leader.
There is no requirement for the Labour leader to be an MP
Here Clause VII. Party officers and statutory officers 1. Party officers A. Leader and deputy leader There shall be a Leader and Deputy Leader of the Party who shall, ex-officio, be Leader and Deputy Leader of the PLP. The Leader and Deputy Leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP in accordance with procedural rule Chapter 4, Clause II below, at a Party conference convened in accordance with Clause VI above. In respect to the election of the Leader and Deputy Leader, the standing orders of the PLP shall always automatically
Burnham only becomes PM if Labour have changed their rules for leader and he wins OR he becomes an MP first and wins the leadership
If Starmer resigns Labour elect their leader under their current rules by their party membership, just as the Canadian Liberals elected Carney via a membership vote
'Candidates seeking to enter the ballot must be an MP'
Not the Labour leadership rules, if you read them there is no requirement I can see to be an MP to stand for Labour leader, just to be nominated by 20% of the PLP.
I think the Commons Library just assumed that without checking
Burnham only becomes PM if Labour have changed their rules for leader and he wins OR he becomes an MP first and wins the leadership
If Starmer resigns Labour elect their leader under their current rules by their party membership, just as the Canadian Liberals elected Carney via a membership vote
'Candidates seeking to enter the ballot must be an MP'
Not the Labour leadership rules, if you read them there is no requirement I can see to be an MP to stand for Labour leader, just to be nominated by 20% of the PLP.
I think the Commons Library just assumed that without checking
No, they read Clause VII
OK, could easily be changed by the NEC though if Starmer had resigned as Labour leader and 20% of the PLP wished to nominate Burnham and he had strong membership support and promised a snap election if he was elected in which he would be a parliamentary candidate
Burnham only becomes PM if Labour have changed their rules for leader and he wins OR he becomes an MP first and wins the leadership
If Starmer resigns Labour elect their leader under their current rules by their party membership, just as the Canadian Liberals elected Carney via a membership vote
'Candidates seeking to enter the ballot must be an MP'
Not the Labour leadership rules, if you read them there is no requirement I can see to be an MP to stand for Labour leader, just to be nominated by 20% of the PLP.
I think the Commons Library just assumed that without checking
No, they read Clause VII
OK, could easily be changed by the NEC though if Starmer had resigned as Labour leader and 20% of the PLP wished to nominate Burnham and he had strong membership support and promised a snap election if he was elected in which he would be a parliamentary candidate
Yes, rules can change, if they are that desperate to install him, which seems very very improbable
Burnham only becomes PM if Labour have changed their rules for leader and he wins OR he becomes an MP first and wins the leadership
If Starmer resigns Labour elect their leader under their current rules by their party membership, just as the Canadian Liberals elected Carney via a membership vote
'Candidates seeking to enter the ballot must be an MP'
Not the Labour leadership rules, if you read them there is no requirement I can see to be an MP to stand for Labour leader, just to be nominated by 20% of the PLP.
I think the Commons Library just assumed that without checking
No, they read Clause VII
OK, could easily be changed by the NEC though if Starmer had resigned as Labour leader and 20% of the PLP wished to nominate Burnham and he had strong membership support and promised a snap election if he was elected in which he would be a parliamentary candidate
Yes, rules can change, if they are that desperate to install him, which seems very very improbable
Given Burnham polls far better with the public than Starmer or Rayner or even Streeting not completely impossible
I can't imagine that Streeting could become leader if its he who's rocked the boat. Were Starmer to stand down and support Streeting as his successor then he has a good chance.
Rayner is favourite in my view - but again I don't think that were she to try a coup it'd go down well.
It's very hard to see a path for Burnham.
But there are a lot of others - it feels to me that the likes of Torsten Bell and Peter Kyle could well be harbouring ambitions (Very thin info)
If Burnham still harboured future Labour leadership ambitions surely he would tried to return to Parliament at the last GE?
Yes, I rather think so. However he has made some returning noises at various times, but of course not actually done anything about it.
It was for an excessively Woke monthly email for July.
It's the school holidays; an ideal time to advertise how to get kids interested in reading, and discuss all the fun holiday reading activities they have coming up. Talk about reading and how libraries can help. Maybe the great weather.
Instead, I was treated to Juche on Happy Disability Pride month, for July, on Celebrating South Asian Heritage month, in August, and a treatise on celebrating women in football.
Burnham only becomes PM if Labour have changed their rules for leader and he wins OR he becomes an MP first and wins the leadership
If Starmer resigns Labour elect their leader under their current rules by their party membership, just as the Canadian Liberals elected Carney via a membership vote
'Candidates seeking to enter the ballot must be an MP'
Not the Labour leadership rules, if you read them there is no requirement I can see to be an MP to stand for Labour leader, just to be nominated by 20% of the PLP.
I think the Commons Library just assumed that without checking
No, they read Clause VII
OK, could easily be changed by the NEC though if Starmer had resigned as Labour leader and 20% of the PLP wished to nominate Burnham and he had strong membership support and promised a snap election if he was elected in which he would be a parliamentary candidate
Yes, rules can change, if they are that desperate to install him, which seems very very improbable
Given Burnham polls far better with the public than Starmer or Rayner or even Streeting not completely impossible
'Very, Very improbable' and 'not impossible' probably not that distantly blood related here What could theoretically happen and what is likely to happen are different beasts
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Not on X so can't read the replies but the advantage of wind is that it blows at night. And more in the winter time when energy consumption is likely to be highest. And although solar may still be cheaper the transmission costs from, eg, the Sahara to here would be massive. Given where we are on the globe I think we have made the right choice. If anyone wants to worry about the base cost of our electricity for manufacturing it is nuclear they should be worrying about, not wind.
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Not on X so can't read the replies but the advantage of wind is that it blows at night. And more in the winter time when energy consumption is likely to be highest. And although solar may still be cheaper the transmission costs from, eg, the Sahara to here would be massive. Given where we are on the globe I think we have made the right choice. If anyone wants to worry about the base cost of our electricity for manufacturing it is nuclear they should be worrying about, not wind.
Boswall's thread points out the key engineering issue of the lifetime costs of any engineered product (for those of you that haven't had to deal with it). PV is simpler, cheaper and less lifetime costs from an installation, running and maintenance point of view.
Against this (as alluded to in the transmission cost) is that solar is in the wrong place for the UK. But if the North Africans decide to set up a grid with the Southern Europeans, you could see an energy cascade northwards. They will have to allow for the NIMBYs that don't like HV transmission lines in their area - a real issue in the UK.
It's a useful contribution to the debate and domestic energy storage (Tesla batteries or even a Tesla) looks like another additional area for future building regulation, if GCH is to be banned. I say that as someone who made their living out of the polluting coal power stations and the even more polluting nuclear.
I have no comment to make on wind - people know my view on that.
But I will say more generally that UK energy policy is in my view heavily led by lobbyists and interest groups - as well as the overall direction of travel being to tick emissions boxes, not generate plentiful, inexpensive energy.
Therefore it is entirely predictable that we would choose the least efficient form of power generation, because greater the inefficiency, the greater money someone is making out of it. We tend to think of 'Government waste' just going into a metaphorical toilet, and nobody would mind if it stopped. Of course, that isn't the case. It actually goes into another organisation's pockets, and those organisations have the resources and influence to keep it that way.
I am not being fatalistic - I really do believe the next Government will start the journey of serious reform that the country needs. But they need to understand broadly that there will be fierce opposition from those who like the current set up - not just for ideological reasons but for profound commercial ones.
For some strange reason, Brits like burning things (coal, gas, nuclear fuel) as they choose to buy poorly insulated shoddily built homes. Perhaps its a weather thing. If we had to cope with months of sub-zero temperatures, we might pay a bit more attention to insulation rather than generation.
Not true.
Modern homes are built very well insulated.
We moved a few years ago from a damp, poorly insulated home we were letting to a modern new build that we own. At the time of bills rising rapidly.
Our gas bill fell as a result. Despite the massively higher gas price, we now use so little of it compared to before that we are paying less.
The problem isn't new homes. The problem is the damp, poorly insulated stock of old homes, combined with the absence of sufficient numbers of new homes.
Its a lot easier to build to modern standards when you build a modern home, than it is to retrofit old homes.
This is a very good thread, which deals at some length with an issue that bothers me, too.
It's not that wind power isn't (probably) the UK's best option for a large slug of our energy mix; it's that it's going to be deeply uncompetitive against year round solar, in countries closer to the equator, at prices of 0.5 cents per kWh.
There are counter arguments, but I'd be interested in what posters like @rcs1000 think.
1. Wind and solar both keep me up at night, but for opposite reasons. Solar works and is winning the global race, Britain simply sits too far north to benefit. Britain is betting on wind instead, yet wind lacks the very traits that makes solar work... https://x.com/RobertBoswall/status/1946513592225792475
Not on X so can't read the replies but the advantage of wind is that it blows at night. And more in the winter time when energy consumption is likely to be highest. And although solar may still be cheaper the transmission costs from, eg, the Sahara to here would be massive. Given where we are on the globe I think we have made the right choice. If anyone wants to worry about the base cost of our electricity for manufacturing it is nuclear they should be worrying about, not wind.
Yes, that's what killed the Xlinks project (along with security concerns).
The point of the argument isn't that wind power is probably a big part of our best energy option - which it likely is - it's that year round solar for the majority of generation in (eg) Arizona or Saudi is going to be less than a third of the cost.
Solar panels are dirt cheap. And getting cheaper. The expensive part is the grid connection, the power converter electronics and battery storage.
If you need 4x as many panels (because it’s the U.K.), the rest of the system stays the same. You only need more panels. Which are dirt cheap.
So a solar farm in the UK will cost little more than one in Morocco. Certainly, the difference will be orders of magnitude less than building and maintaining an inter-continental cable.
Yes. On a related point about solar farms on agricultural land, which I think a ridiculous objection, I calculated you could replicate the entire current electricity production of the UK as solar panels and still only take up 0.5% of agricultural land.
Having said that, current and planned wind farms are a cost effective means of energy generation and better than anything else except solar.
Solar or wind, the problem is the national grid is not up to the job of transferring electricity round the country. That is why it costs hundreds of millions of pounds, if not billions, to pay generators not to generate. That is why solar farm developers want subsidised access to the grid which in turn is why nimbys object to new cables.
The national grid was developed on the assumption power stations were near towns, not halfway up a mountain or in the middle of the North Sea.
Fix the grid, Ed, or the rest won't matter.
If we committed some (or all) of the £20bn for carbon capture towards HVDC interconnects instead, it would offer far more value. We even have a domestic manufacturer (XLCC) which we could give more business to.
When this is all over, Britain will have spent well over £10B of its scarce 'new things' budget for essentially no long term gain (likely a huge long term loss). No new infra, no economic benefits. Just a whole load of hotel rooms rented for a half decade and £10B+ more debt."
Comments
Rayner is favourite in my view - but again I don't think that were she to try a coup it'd go down well.
It's very hard to see a path for Burnham.
But there are a lot of others - it feels to me that the likes of Torsten Bell and Peter Kyle could well be harbouring ambitions (Very thin info)
If we sort that out, possibly.
I am entirely unsurprised by this being further exploited.
It would be like the Tories going for a speaker era Bercow/Nick Boles leftward lurch
They could equally well elect Andy Burnham as leader and PM. When you have been in opposition for x years then people doing important roles in the provinces (or devolved administrations) should be particularly valuable.
A couple of ajummas stopped in passing to offer tangerines.
Labour Yimby are disappointed by the Government’s decision to concede to the Nimby lobby on the planning reforms this country so desperately needs.
For the first time the Labour Government is backing the blockers, not the builders.
https://x.com/yimbylabour/status/1946179185728188452
Bluesky is dying on its arse. It is folding. It is perishing. It is banjaxed
I read the other day that it is now down to 600,000 regular users. X, by contrast, is SEVENTY times bigger than this. There is no contest; Bluesky has failed
No one goes on Bluesky anymore apart from a rabble of whining lefties, a couple of stubborn celebs (tho even they are slinking back to X) plus a few voyeuristic rightwingers who go on there to laugh at the inmates, like posh people touring Bedlam in 1810
TwiX is an intellectual dead end (for fascists)
You’re better off fighting new battles elsewhere, but seeing as this is you, I doubt you will heed my advice
In Burnhams case, I think trying to foist him on us as our PM before he had a seat in the Commons would be the electoral end of the Labour Party and he'd probably very likely lose any by election - the opposition would put up a unity candidate under some sort of 'stop the outrage!' banner
Telling HMK not a single one of your 400 MPs can govern and it has to be 'some dude' would also be constitutionally interesting
It’s got the last few prominent British Blueskyers in despair - the final blow. They are already down to about 9 people
However I wonder if/how X can avoid this? Or indeed Facebook, insta etc?
Clearly wanted to see them before she died. Which, to my non-medical eye, seemed to becoming quite a race.
This could be a problem as a lot of us are (mentally at least) well under 18
They probably need to rethink how it's structured, if it's not already too late.
X directs a torrent of shit at you, but with a little effort you can filter out the shit, and retain some of the torrent.
Bluesky does the filtering, but doesn't provide a torrent to bathe in.
Although, voting for Truss shows they ain't exactly politically attuned either...
Reinventing himself as a regional champion has gone well. He is popular because he doesn’t have to take responsibility for cuts or tax rises. To be fair, he has worked pretty hard within the limitations of the job. He has built a solid personal following. Even with the Labour collapse, he will win the next Mayoral election, I think.
So, he has relatively secure, well paid job. That he likes and does well. Within the Labour movement he is lauded from Left to Right.
Giving that up to, to try to and become leader, when that is looking like a disaster?
Why would he? Ambition? A belief that “only I can save this”? Not sure I see either of those in Burnham.
What about if we found some locations close to the equator, and in the Southern hemisphere, where the locals were up for doing some sort of deal to give us control over the land in exchange for trade and protection? And if they weren’t willing, we could take it by force. Then we could build loads of solar generation there, and the industries to make use of it.
Empire of the Sun.
Presumably, supply chains being what they are, if electricity becomes almost free in equatorial regions then It’ll become economic to produce vast amounts of green hydrogen and ship it north, just like the gulf ships us LNG at the moment.
Yes it is possible to do it, i'm suggesting what i think the implications of doing it would be.
If you don't want to use it then don't.
It was a minority one.
Our parlous situation relates to successive Governments' energy policies being the result of the desire by decision makers to be feted at climate conferences, and being at it.
Hes not going to give up his mayoralty to become a backbencher who might have enough suppiot to maybe get on the ballot if a vacancy arises
My illusions about Anthony Wells have been shattered by all those photos. He is now in my head as half Jeremy Corbyn, half David Bellamy - fortunately without the rabbit suit from The Goodies.
It would require Starmer to step down and be replaced by Burnham in 2028 and Burnham to call a snap election straight after on the same basis, having first been selected for a safe Greater Manchester seat
I grant you there is though a Cnut-like approach to the economics of green energy, making it far more expensive that it needs to be to preserve certain status quo but this is recent. Dr Dieter Helm is you man for this.
https://dieterhelm.co.uk/category/energy-climate/
Having said that, current and planned wind farms are a cost effective means of energy generation and better than anything else except solar.
https://www.cityam.com/danny-alexander-he-s-toast-osborne-no-way-he-ll-oust-david-cameron/
I particularly enjoy seeing Bluesky lefties in pain because they are such smug, wanky little pricks
The LDs and Greens got 16% combined, the Tories 14%
If Reform win the next general election Bluesky will be like the late film critic Pauline Kael who reacted to Nixon's landslide win in 1972 over her favoured candidate McGovern “How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him”.
https://www.ess-news.com/2025/06/26/china-energy-engineering-launches-record-25-gwh-storage-tender-as-prices-hit-historic-low/
https://www.thetimes.com/article/f25f5c94-2e41-4237-b3f2-2d6bf0654634?shareToken=cc132565aac2dd1f73d2d7037472df94
"UK asylum seekers caught entering Ireland for double benefits"
I think this decision was a mistake.
The problem is conceptual: it was founded exactly as that. A safe space for lefties, fleeing X
Then they realised that only lefties were coming over, and there was no one to debate or argue with, no diversity of thought, and so it could not grow properly. So they made half-arsed attempts to lure rightwingers and centrists, but by then the culture was cemented in place: bitter, angry, lefty, deluded, humourless, full of "people" like @Scott_xP, and furiously intolerent of any deviation from Woke Maximalism
Not exactly inviting, so no one accepted the invitation, and so it slowly dies. It cannot recover now
Burnham would call a snap general election as soon as he was elected, just as Carney did
"More than 90 criminal charges have been brought against the residents of the Thistle Barbican migrant hotel in central London.
Businesses in the vicinity are struggling as 'customers won't come after 9pm because they feel scared'."
https://x.com/maxtempers/status/1946846116323979304
And
When this is all over, Britain will have spent well over £10B of its scarce 'new things' budget for essentially no long term gain (likely a huge long term loss). No new infra, no economic benefits. Just a whole load of hotel rooms rented for a half decade and £10B+ more debt."
https://x.com/BernoulliDefect/status/1946881246212100511
Modern homes are built very well insulated.
We moved a few years ago from a damp, poorly insulated home we were letting to a modern new build that we own. At the time of bills rising rapidly.
Our gas bill fell as a result. Despite the massively higher gas price, we now use so little of it compared to before that we are paying less.
The problem isn't new homes. The problem is the damp, poorly insulated stock of old homes, combined with the absence of sufficient numbers of new homes.
Its a lot easier to build to modern standards when you build a modern home, than it is to retrofit old homes.
Edit - burnham isnt being sent for unless he wins the leadership. He currently cannot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX85TZOqoOk
Really I'm not very convinced by the studio design; the chairs for Farage, Davey, Reed, and Wotsit are like the model chairs we used to make out of egg boxes at primary school. That will get savaged in memoirs in a few years' time.
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/look-out-for-the-mafia-with-rainbow-lanyards-vb29s3b86
"‘Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King Jr said that, a man I’d hope Isla Bumba, NHS Fife’s equality and human rights lead officer, had heard of, considering her job is improving diversity. Although given Bumba admitted last week that she wasn’t entirely sure if she was a woman, it’s probably best not to make assumptions."
There is no requirement for the Labour leader or even the PM to be an MP as long as the former wins most votes of the Labour membership and the latter is able to command the support of a majority of MPs in Parliament
A northerly country where winter insolation is less than a sixth of the summer amount (which weather can bring down to almost nil) has to rely on wind for peak seasonal (winter) demand.
And wind variability means you need a lot more than 24hrs of battery storage - so the effective cost is a lot higher.
Solar is nice to have but not the solution in the UK. It is however supplementary to wind, which dips in the summer when solar peaks, so that's a nice bonus too.
The national grid was developed on the assumption power stations were near towns, not halfway up a mountain or in the middle of the North Sea.
Fix the grid, Ed, or the rest won't matter.
Burnham doesn't want to be PM.
He has no interest in Westminster and doesn't like London.
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Rule-Book-2024.pdf
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn03938/
'Candidates seeking to enter the ballot must be an MP'
I think the Commons Library just assumed that without checking
Clause VII.
Party officers and statutory officers
1. Party officers
A. Leader and deputy leader
There shall be a Leader and Deputy Leader
of the Party who shall, ex-officio, be Leader
and Deputy Leader of the PLP.
The Leader and Deputy Leader of the Party
shall be elected or re-elected from among
Commons members of the PLP in
accordance with procedural rule Chapter 4,
Clause II below, at a Party conference
convened in accordance with Clause VI
above. In respect to the election of the
Leader and Deputy Leader, the standing
orders of the PLP shall always automatically
It was for an excessively Woke monthly email for July.
It's the school holidays; an ideal time to advertise how to get kids interested in reading, and discuss all the fun holiday reading activities they have coming up. Talk about reading and how libraries can help. Maybe the great weather.
Instead, I was treated to Juche on Happy Disability Pride month, for July, on Celebrating South Asian Heritage month, in August, and a treatise on celebrating women in football.
Enough.
What could theoretically happen and what is likely to happen are different beasts
We even have a domestic manufacturer (XLCC) which we could give more business to.