Skip to content

Corbyn continues to help get right wing governments elected – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,657
edited August 31 in General
Corbyn continues to help get right wing governments elected – politicalbetting.com

Our poll of over 1000 16/17 year olds for tomorrow’s Sunday Times shows how the newest additions to the electorate may vote. Including Your Party, it’s a virtual tie between Corbyn’s new Party, Labour & ReformWithout Labour hold a 7 point lead over Reform. Read it all below! https://t.co/CzAW2l6dov pic.twitter.com/6TiSqbP73b

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,371
    Possibly first?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,877
    FPT:

    Cheers, Dr. Foxy.

    I eat a fair amount of fish and spinach, so that seems alright.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,897
    quiet this morning , 3rd rate like labour.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,680
    Good morning

    Bridget Phillipson on Trevor Phillips has said the government are looking at reform of the ECHR

    Has she asked Starmer ?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,125
    I'm disappointed that 25% of young people like Donald Trump. Those ones need to grow up.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,899
    Another day where there will be no proof produced that Trump is alive.

    He’s died on the toilet like Elvis after too many Big Macs and there’s an insurrection inside MAGA as the last anyone saw was JD Vance going to the McDonalds drive-thru for the boss
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,769
    Brigitte Phillipson's dulcet northeastern tones.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,535
    edited August 31

    Good morning

    Bridget Phillipson on Trevor Phillips has said the government are looking at reform of the ECHR

    Has she asked Starmer ?

    I am guessing she has because Starmer asked Yvette Cooper/Shabana Mahmood to do a review of Article 8 so it can be reformed back in June.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,001

    Good morning

    Bridget Phillipson on Trevor Phillips has said the government are looking at reform of the ECHR

    Has she asked Starmer ?

    It’s more in relation to narrowing the range of Article 8 interpretation by UK judges .
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,680
    edited August 31

    Good morning

    Bridget Phillipson on Trevor Phillips has said the government are looking at reform of the ECHR

    Has she asked Starmer ?

    I am guessing she has because Starmer asked Yvette Cooper/Shabana Mahmood to do a review of Article 8 so it can be reformed back in June.
    To be fair I would agree not least because it is a quite a change in policy
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,680
    nico67 said:

    Good morning

    Bridget Phillipson on Trevor Phillips has said the government are looking at reform of the ECHR

    Has she asked Starmer ?

    It’s more in relation to narrowing the range of Article 8 interpretation by UK judges .
    It is still a change in policy direction
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,825

    Another day where there will be no proof produced that Trump is alive.

    He’s died on the toilet like Elvis after too many Big Macs and there’s an insurrection inside MAGA as the last anyone saw was JD Vance going to the McDonalds drive-thru for the boss

    If JD Vance went to visit, then death is surely confirmed. Vance has form as the Dr Shipman of the political world...
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,001

    nico67 said:

    Good morning

    Bridget Phillipson on Trevor Phillips has said the government are looking at reform of the ECHR

    Has she asked Starmer ?

    It’s more in relation to narrowing the range of Article 8 interpretation by UK judges .
    It is still a change in policy direction
    It’s not really controversial for Labour to do that , I think most people think there have been some issues with how that’s been interpreted.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,371
    kinabalu said:

    I'm disappointed that 25% of young people like Donald Trump. Those ones need to grow up.

    But overall the picture this gives of 16 and 17 year olds isn't at all bad. They are mostly very decent people. I would rather they had the vote than grumpy entitled boomers (I am a boomer) preserving their privileges and erecting huge fences of debt and scarcity for the 16 year olds future.

    And they don't like Bonnie Blue. This gives me a bit of hope. Maybe they are normal.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,985
    Labour still leads Reform then with 16 to 17 year olds unlike nationally amongst all age groups even with Your Party but not by enough to make giving them the vote have much difference.

    Tories also up to 14% with 16 and 17 year olds compared to 8% with 18 to 24s at the general election
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,877

    Another day where there will be no proof produced that Trump is alive.

    He’s died on the toilet like Elvis after too many Big Macs and there’s an insurrection inside MAGA as the last anyone saw was JD Vance going to the McDonalds drive-thru for the boss

    Unlikely.

    If Trump were gone, Vance would be wetting himself with glee.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,324
    Respect to the 1% who switch from Conservative to Sultanarama.

    Is there a sex breakdown on the Andrew Tate and Bonnie Blue questions?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,899

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,825
    I think it rather too early to assess the impact of "Your Party" as we don't yet know it's name, structure, leadership or policies, nor what it's local presence will look like.

    I suspect it will be a flash in the pan, and be absorbed into either a post-Starmer Labour Party or into the Greens, and possibly only stand in a minority of seats.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,526

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    Just when we were running out of energy crises...

    Norway’s electricity crisis is about to hit Britain
    European countries like the UK have become too reliant on cheap hydro from Scandinavia

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/5d55f3c61463b402

    That's the gift link so should be free to read. TL/DR; Norway is running out of water which is a key ingredient of export-grade electricity.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,467
    I’m surprised 25% are positive about Trump.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,680

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,552

    Respect to the 1% who switch from Conservative to Sultanarama.

    Is there a sex breakdown on the Andrew Tate and Bonnie Blue questions?

    I think sex and at least one breakdown would be guaranteed should those two ever meet.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,816

    Brigitte Phillipson's dulcet northeastern tones.

    If you close your eyes, you could be listening to Joyce Grenfell.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,700
    edited August 31
    FPT: any talk of aligning our motor vehicle standards with the US is going to be toxic in Europe/UK. The risk of death from being hit by a US-style pickup truck is around 200% higher than your standard car, and it's particularly bad for children. There's a reason the US is such an outlier when it comes to improving safety on the roads.

    I don't see any deal being done if that is on the table.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,125
    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    I'm disappointed that 25% of young people like Donald Trump. Those ones need to grow up.

    But overall the picture this gives of 16 and 17 year olds isn't at all bad. They are mostly very decent people. I would rather they had the vote than grumpy entitled boomers (I am a boomer) preserving their privileges and erecting huge fences of debt and scarcity for the 16 year olds future.

    And they don't like Bonnie Blue. This gives me a bit of hope. Maybe they are normal.
    Yes, and I do support them having the vote. Tbf it's less concerning that a 16 year old would like Donald Trump than a 66 year old. When you're 16 your views and opinions are in flux. At 66 they're done and dusted.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,411
    I’d forgotten about this; Man Utd got a penalty for what Fulham had a goal disallowed for yesterday

    Foul on Konsa here so there is precedent…
    Sorry. I mean penalty to Manchester United. 🤪


    https://x.com/slbsn/status/1961765004648047073?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,680
    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    I'm disappointed that 25% of young people like Donald Trump. Those ones need to grow up.

    But overall the picture this gives of 16 and 17 year olds isn't at all bad. They are mostly very decent people. I would rather they had the vote than grumpy entitled boomers (I am a boomer) preserving their privileges and erecting huge fences of debt and scarcity for the 16 year olds future.

    And they don't like Bonnie Blue. This gives me a bit of hope. Maybe they are normal.
    Yes, and I do support them having the vote. Tbf it's less concerning that a 16 year old would like Donald Trump than a 66 year old. When you're 16 your views and opinions are in flux. At 66 they're done and dusted.
    I am 81 and throughout my lifetime I have changed my views on many things and continue to do so
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,966

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    There’s oil left? There’s a surprise.

    https://x.com/deariain/status/1958411962368348604?s=46&t=fJymV-V84rexmlQMLXHHJQ
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,125

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    I'm disappointed that 25% of young people like Donald Trump. Those ones need to grow up.

    But overall the picture this gives of 16 and 17 year olds isn't at all bad. They are mostly very decent people. I would rather they had the vote than grumpy entitled boomers (I am a boomer) preserving their privileges and erecting huge fences of debt and scarcity for the 16 year olds future.

    And they don't like Bonnie Blue. This gives me a bit of hope. Maybe they are normal.
    Yes, and I do support them having the vote. Tbf it's less concerning that a 16 year old would like Donald Trump than a 66 year old. When you're 16 your views and opinions are in flux. At 66 they're done and dusted.
    I am 81 and throughout my lifetime I have changed my views on many things and continue to do so
    I know. You voted for Blair, twice.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,966
    Dura_Ace said:

    Brigitte Phillipson's dulcet northeastern tones.

    If you close your eyes, you could be listening to Joyce Grenfell.
    From Joyce Grenfell to Grenfell Tower, the British post-war arc.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,700
    edited August 31

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    You sound like one of our contractors. This is the kind of language you get from someone who hasn't done any work and has no intention of doing any in the future.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,680
    I really do not like Richard Tice but in his interview with Trevor Phillips he is straightforward with his answers no matter they are unworkable
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,680
    Eabhal said:

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    You sound like one of our contractors. So this IT transition will be complete in roughly 2130.
    Frankly, arbitrary dates are not the way to transition unless they are realistic
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,001

    I really do not like Richard Tice but in his interview with Trevor Phillips he is straightforward with his answers no matter they are unworkable

    What’s the point of being straightforward if the policy is unworkable. Anyone can go out and tell people what they want to hear ?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,526
    isam said:

    I’d forgotten about this; Man Utd got a penalty for what Fulham had a goal disallowed for yesterday

    Foul on Konsa here so there is precedent…
    Sorry. I mean penalty to Manchester United. 🤪


    https://x.com/slbsn/status/1961765004648047073?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    With the return of 2-tier refereeing and generous Fergie time, I am almost tempted to back Manchester United: 7/2 for a top-4 finish.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,700
    edited August 31

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    Net Zero gets branded as zero emissions. This is incorrect. It’s balancing the emissions against renewables to get to a net zero, not an actual zero.

    I’d rebrand it. “Energy Freedom”.
    We can’t really refine our own oil so we have to export it - we’re reliant on imports.
    We can’t bring up enough gas now - a quarter of power is from burning gas and we have to import half. Burn more gas even with more production = reliance on imports.
    Wind? That is ours. Reform demand that we literally switch the windfarms off. The “patriots” in Reform want us reliant on foreigners.
    Yep, if you're so desperately concerned about us importing gas the only solution is to massively reduce our consumption of it. But when we suggest moving everyone onto heat pumps and accelerating solar/wind, the same people get very upset indeed.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,680

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    Net Zero gets branded as zero emissions. This is incorrect. It’s balancing the emissions against renewables to get to a net zero, not an actual zero.

    I’d rebrand it. “Energy Freedom”.
    We can’t really refine our own oil so we have to export it - we’re reliant on imports.
    We can’t bring up enough gas now - a quarter of power is from burning gas and we have to import half. Burn more gas even with more production = reliance on imports.
    Wind? That is ours. Reform demand that we literally switch the windfarms off. The “patriots” in Reform want us reliant on foreigners.
    Wind and solar have been a real success, and by the way a lot of that was under the conservatives

    Reform and Trump are deranged about windfarms
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,816
    nico67 said:

    I really do not like Richard Tice but in his interview with Trevor Phillips he is straightforward with his answers no matter they are unworkable

    What’s the point of being straightforward if the policy is unworkable. Anyone can go out and tell people what they want to hear ?
    In his way, I think Ticey is more detestable than Pharage because he actually believes all this stupid shit is a good idea in contrast to just being a straightforward conman.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,700
    edited August 31

    Eabhal said:

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    You sound like one of our contractors. So this IT transition will be complete in roughly 2130.
    Frankly, arbitrary dates are not the way to transition unless they are realistic
    We put man on the moon 66 years after the first powered flight. 2050 is not only realistic, it's pathetic.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,125

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    Net Zero gets branded as zero emissions. This is incorrect. It’s balancing the emissions against renewables to get to a net zero, not an actual zero.

    I’d rebrand it. “Energy Freedom”.
    We can’t really refine our own oil so we have to export it - we’re reliant on imports.
    We can’t bring up enough gas now - a quarter of power is from burning gas and we have to import half. Burn more gas even with more production = reliance on imports.
    Wind? That is ours. Reform demand that we literally switch the windfarms off. The “patriots” in Reform want us reliant on foreigners.
    Reform's policy is driven purely by the 'vibe' of it. No more green woke salad nonsense, back to good old meat and potatoes.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,680
    nico67 said:

    I really do not like Richard Tice but in his interview with Trevor Phillips he is straightforward with his answers no matter they are unworkable

    What’s the point of being straightforward if the policy is unworkable. Anyone can go out and tell people what they want to hear ?
    As the panel said afterwards they give a simple message, whilst labour are literally all at sea [ if you excuse the pun]
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,899
    Eabhal said:

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    Net Zero gets branded as zero emissions. This is incorrect. It’s balancing the emissions against renewables to get to a net zero, not an actual zero.

    I’d rebrand it. “Energy Freedom”.
    We can’t really refine our own oil so we have to export it - we’re reliant on imports.
    We can’t bring up enough gas now - a quarter of power is from burning gas and we have to import half. Burn more gas even with more production = reliance on imports.
    Wind? That is ours. Reform demand that we literally switch the windfarms off. The “patriots” in Reform want us reliant on foreigners.
    Yep, if you're so desperately concerned about us importing gas the only solution is to massively reduce our consumption of it. But when we suggest moving everyone onto heat pumps and accelerating solar/wind, the same people get very upset indeed.
    I chatted with the local reform lot about energy. Apparently we’re mates with Trump and Qatar so reliance on them for imports into England is fine. And much better than having tens of thousands of local jobs in renewables.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,680

    isam said:

    I’d forgotten about this; Man Utd got a penalty for what Fulham had a goal disallowed for yesterday

    Foul on Konsa here so there is precedent…
    Sorry. I mean penalty to Manchester United. 🤪


    https://x.com/slbsn/status/1961765004648047073?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    With the return of 2-tier refereeing and generous Fergie time, I am almost tempted to back Manchester United: 7/2 for a top-4 finish.
    I am not, but yesterday was pivotal for Amorin

    Lost and he would have gone, but he has the international break and the end of the transfer window to resolve issues especially the goalkeeper and midfield
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,125

    isam said:

    I’d forgotten about this; Man Utd got a penalty for what Fulham had a goal disallowed for yesterday

    Foul on Konsa here so there is precedent…
    Sorry. I mean penalty to Manchester United. 🤪


    https://x.com/slbsn/status/1961765004648047073?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    With the return of 2-tier refereeing and generous Fergie time, I am almost tempted to back Manchester United: 7/2 for a top-4 finish.
    And they've cleared the decks with that Carabao cup exit.

    My main season bet is Chelsea top 2 at 7.6.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,767

    Another day where there will be no proof produced that Trump is alive.

    He’s died on the toilet like Elvis after too many Big Macs and there’s an insurrection inside MAGA as the last anyone saw was JD Vance going to the McDonalds drive-thru for the boss

    Unlikely.

    If Trump were gone, Vance would be wetting himself with glee.
    All the money behind Project 2025 wouldn't be mourning Trump either.

    Although it is likely Vance would fail to bring a swathe of the MAGA crowd with him. He could be plumbing remarkable levels of unpopularity.

    "I didn't vote for him!"

    Well, actually when you voted for a 79 year old with a bunch of health issues and a terrible diet - you did.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,767
    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    I’d forgotten about this; Man Utd got a penalty for what Fulham had a goal disallowed for yesterday

    Foul on Konsa here so there is precedent…
    Sorry. I mean penalty to Manchester United. 🤪


    https://x.com/slbsn/status/1961765004648047073?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    With the return of 2-tier refereeing and generous Fergie time, I am almost tempted to back Manchester United: 7/2 for a top-4 finish.
    And they've cleared the decks with that Carabao cup exit.

    My main season bet is Chelsea top 2 at 7.6.
    Spurs are being Spursy.

    A win against West Ham this afternoon would see Forest again up there too. Although who the hell knows what is going on behind the scenes there.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 64,818
    Guten morgen from the Altausee

    An immaculately beautiful Alpine lake, in the saltzkammergut, playground of the Nazi elite. Who hid their favourite artworks in the salt mines in the mountains

    I like it!
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,001
    edited August 31
    algarkirk said:

    nico67 said:

    I really do not like Richard Tice but in his interview with Trevor Phillips he is straightforward with his answers no matter they are unworkable

    What’s the point of being straightforward if the policy is unworkable. Anyone can go out and tell people what they want to hear ?
    Which is why opposition is easy and governing is hard. Opposition is especially easy when you don't have a governing track record, you rely on the general public not understanding the place of the rule of law, you treat the courts and judges as if they are a sort of enemy and an absurd imposition on the rest of us, the media conspire not to ask searching questions on intractable economic and fiscal matters, and many voters prefer to believe that a Reform state can cut expenditure on everyone else while maintaining all the free stuff for oneself.
    So it’s a bit like the Maga . Vote for Farage and all the bad things will happen to others except when they don’t . CoachD on good form , don’t view if you don’t enjoy a little Maga schadenfreude !

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYQ8AEi3b_s
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,190
    Morning all :)

    I find as I get older, my views become more contradictory and nuanced and I appreciate the difficulties and complexities of Government and governing.

    On the North Sea, we have experts on here who, if I’ve understood them correctly, say once these oil and gas fields are capped off or closed down or decommissioned or whatever the terminology it is practically impossible to re-open them with current technology.

    I’m curious as to whether the prohibitive cost of extracting the oil and gas actually makes a nonsense of the Badenoch sound bite (though as all good soundbites such as the notion the Appeals Court was more interested in the rights of migrants than residents it’s a distortion of the facts and the truth).

    Just because you can get your oil and gas prohibitively expensively from your own waters doesn’t mean you should. Yes, we should be investing in energy security but part of an overall policy which, in my view, should be much more strongly regulated so the energy company cartel loses the power (so to speak) it currently uses and abuses.

    Channelling my inner Corbyn there for a moment. There are aspects of the man and the way he does politics I like and the fact he has won re-election in his corner of London for over 40 years speaks volumes but there are aspects which he does wrong and for all the weasel words about peace and humanity, associating with those who are the nation’s sworn enemies doesn’t do him any favours with the electorate. To seek to resolve conflict is laudable and no one can gainsay the efforts of Major, Blair and many others in Northern Ireland but to achieve peace, everyone must want peace and commit to it and take actions to confirm that commitment. Standing with those who are clearly still committed to terror and violence is not what a serious politician should be about.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,730
    edited August 31
    On topic: this polling is equally hypothetical to all the other flagged hypothetical polls though.

    There is a market for a left party, but at this point it will be one quite self-evidently born out of the pro-Palestinian movement - a (possibly) friendlier faced WPGB. And it's birthing pains already threaten its success - it does give "9 lefties trying to give birth to a new party in 1 month" vibes.

    On the threat to the Greens, I think Geography will help them here - in areas of Green strength, Left will struggle to get traction, particularly if Left and Green do not go for each other too hard. Which is not to say they will never nobble each other - in the GE, Huddersfield Greens did very well of the back of there being no Gaza Independent and having the backing of the "Community Action Group", where as in the locals they were nobbled in Greenhead ward by the vote splitting of a Gaza Independent.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 64,818
    The Austrian women here actually wear dirndl. Like, for real. Every day

    These Austrian valleys really are Deep Europe. If we are to liberate Europe from its miseries and purge it of guilt and decline, we will need to call on these profound cultural resources. Places where the muscle memory of European-ness is vital and strong, still

    AEIOU
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,700
    edited August 31

    a

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    You sound like one of our contractors. So this IT transition will be complete in roughly 2130.
    Frankly, arbitrary dates are not the way to transition unless they are realistic
    We put man on the moon 66 years after the first powered flight. 2050 is not only realistic, it's pathetic.
    Thumping tables isn’t an answer either.

    The moon landing decision was made long *after* 1) Staging rockets was proved, 2) the multi stage rocket equations were developed and proven 3) fuels with sufficient ISP were developed. And demonstrated in working rocket engines.

    Which meant that scientists could tell JFK that they could land multiple tons on the moon, given a jillion dollars.

    There are large areas, in non-burning applications of fossil fuels where we don’t have the answers. Yet.

    Politicians with arts degrees demanding the tide turn won’t turn the tide.

    If Ed Quetaband was actually useful, the U.K. would be building a non-fossil fuel steel works. That technology is on the edge of practicality - first trial plants are being built elsewhere - and may offer cheaper steel in the long run.

    But he is hooked on the reductionist approach. Which, in reality, just means sending the emissions abroad with the jobs.
    I think all of that is wrong.

    The main areas of carbon emissions we still need to resolve - heating buildings, domestic transport - already have off-the-shelf solutions. EVs and heat pumps (or other electrical heating systems), both of which have been around for decades. Agriculture is only particularly tricky one, but there are some ideas there too.

    And we are building steel works that run off electricity. Indeed most of the steel in the UK is already produced that way.

    I agree that offshoring is a severe limitation on our progress so far, and the government is resolving that with CBAM in 2027. What's not to like?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,969

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    Just when we were running out of energy crises...

    Norway’s electricity crisis is about to hit Britain
    European countries like the UK have become too reliant on cheap hydro from Scandinavia

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/5d55f3c61463b402

    That's the gift link so should be free to read. TL/DR; Norway is running out of water which is a key ingredient of export-grade electricity.
    Speaking of energy sources, this was interesting: https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/japan-just-switched-on-asias-first-osmotic-power-plant-which-runs-24-7-on-nothing-but-fresh-water-and-seawater/ It's an osmotic power plant. Almost magical in getting power from nothing more than some seawater and some freshwater.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 5,192

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    The curse of IT projects. Clients don't know what they want, but they know exactly when they want it.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,313

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    Just when we were running out of energy crises...

    Norway’s electricity crisis is about to hit Britain
    European countries like the UK have become too reliant on cheap hydro from Scandinavia

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/5d55f3c61463b402

    That's the gift link so should be free to read. TL/DR; Norway is running out of water which is a key ingredient of export-grade electricity.
    Speaking of energy sources, this was interesting: https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/japan-just-switched-on-asias-first-osmotic-power-plant-which-runs-24-7-on-nothing-but-fresh-water-and-seawater/ It's an osmotic power plant. Almost magical in getting power from nothing more than some seawater and some freshwater.
    It's neat, but I get the impression it's better to think of it as an efficiency impover for the desalination plant rather than as a power source in its own right. Like a turbocharger in an engine, you get to harvest some of the exhaust (in this case the extremely salty water) that you would otherwise have just dumped, and can feed it back to make the desalination a bit cheaper to run.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,624

    nico67 said:

    I really do not like Richard Tice but in his interview with Trevor Phillips he is straightforward with his answers no matter they are unworkable

    What’s the point of being straightforward if the policy is unworkable. Anyone can go out and tell people what they want to hear ?
    As the panel said afterwards they give a simple message, whilst labour are literally all at sea [ if you excuse the pun]
    And that's the heart of the problem.

    Anything can be made simple if you chop off the awkward bits. Once you engage with all of reality, it becomes complex.

    This is the kind of thing that conservatives used to be proud of doing- dealing with the world as it is, not the cartoon we would like. What the heck has happened?
  • a

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    You sound like one of our contractors. So this IT transition will be complete in roughly 2130.
    Frankly, arbitrary dates are not the way to transition unless they are realistic
    We put man on the moon 66 years after the first powered flight. 2050 is not only realistic, it's pathetic.
    Thumping tables isn’t an answer either.

    The moon landing decision was made long *after* 1) Staging rockets was proved, 2) the multi stage rocket equations were developed and proven 3) fuels with sufficient ISP were developed. And demonstrated in working rocket engines.

    Which meant that scientists could tell JFK that they could land multiple tons on the moon, given a jillion dollars.

    There are large areas, in non-burning applications of fossil fuels where we don’t have the answers. Yet.

    Politicians with arts degrees demanding the tide turn won’t turn the tide.

    If Ed Quetaband was actually useful, the U.K. would be building a non-fossil fuel steel works. That technology is on the edge of practicality - first trial plants are being built elsewhere - and may offer cheaper steel in the long run.

    But he is hooked on the reductionist approach. Which, in reality, just means sending the emissions abroad with the jobs.
    Isn't the government currently supporting the Port Talbot steelworks to transition to electric arc furnaces?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,680

    nico67 said:

    I really do not like Richard Tice but in his interview with Trevor Phillips he is straightforward with his answers no matter they are unworkable

    What’s the point of being straightforward if the policy is unworkable. Anyone can go out and tell people what they want to hear ?
    As the panel said afterwards they give a simple message, whilst labour are literally all at sea [ if you excuse the pun]
    And that's the heart of the problem.

    Anything can be made simple if you chop off the awkward bits. Once you engage with all of reality, it becomes complex.

    This is the kind of thing that conservatives used to be proud of doing- dealing with the world as it is, not the cartoon we would like. What the heck has happened?
    Starmer and labour lost the room through ill judged decisions and arriving in office with their Ming vase strategy

    Sky just displaying chart showing Reform have led every poll since 14th April
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,032

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    Net Zero gets branded as zero emissions. This is incorrect. It’s balancing the emissions against renewables to get to a net zero, not an actual zero.

    I’d rebrand it. “Energy Freedom”.
    We can’t really refine our own oil so we have to export it - we’re reliant on imports.
    We can’t bring up enough gas now - a quarter of power is from burning gas and we have to import half. Burn more gas even with more production = reliance on imports.
    Wind? That is ours. Reform demand that we literally switch the windfarms off. The “patriots” in Reform want us reliant on foreigners.
    Wind and solar have been a real success, and by the way a lot of that was under the conservatives

    Reform and Trump are deranged about windfarms
    I don't think you need the last two words.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,190
    Leon said:

    Guten morgen from the Altausee

    An immaculately beautiful Alpine lake, in the saltzkammergut, playground of the Nazi elite. Who hid their favourite artworks in the salt mines in the mountains

    I like it!

    It’s not nearby but if you can, visit Sterzing or Vitipeno and the magnificent Reifenstein Castle.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,680
    Lionel Barber [FT] on Sky states the obvious

    'Reeves original sin was to say we are not going to raise income tax, vat, or NI - terrible mistake leaving her no room to manoeuvre'
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,667
    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    You sound like one of our contractors. So this IT transition will be complete in roughly 2130.
    Frankly, arbitrary dates are not the way to transition unless they are realistic
    We put man on the moon 66 years after the first powered flight. 2050 is not only realistic, it's pathetic.
    Thumping tables isn’t an answer either.

    The moon landing decision was made long *after* 1) Staging rockets was proved, 2) the multi stage rocket equations were developed and proven 3) fuels with sufficient ISP were developed. And demonstrated in working rocket engines.

    Which meant that scientists could tell JFK that they could land multiple tons on the moon, given a jillion dollars.

    There are large areas, in non-burning applications of fossil fuels where we don’t have the answers. Yet.

    Politicians with arts degrees demanding the tide turn won’t turn the tide.

    If Ed Quetaband was actually useful, the U.K. would be building a non-fossil fuel steel works. That technology is on the edge of practicality - first trial plants are being built elsewhere - and may offer cheaper steel in the long run.

    But he is hooked on the reductionist approach. Which, in reality, just means sending the emissions abroad with the jobs.
    I think all of that is wrong.

    The main areas of carbon emissions we still need to resolve - heating buildings, domestic transport - already have off-the-shelf solutions. EVs and heat pumps (or other electrical heating systems), both of which have been around for decades. Agriculture is only particularly tricky one, but there are some ideas there too.

    And we are building steel works that run off electricity. Indeed most of the steel in the UK is already produced that way.

    I agree that offshoring is a severe limitation on our progress so far, and the government is resolving that with CBAM in 2027. What's not to like?
    You are missing a number of areas - plastics, composites and medicines for a start.

    We’ve talked about hydrogen reduction steel making, but not much is actually happening. Keeping electricity prices high is government policy, to reduce demand - the reductionist philosophy. This means that no-one is prepared to build a new facility.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,667

    a

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    You sound like one of our contractors. So this IT transition will be complete in roughly 2130.
    Frankly, arbitrary dates are not the way to transition unless they are realistic
    We put man on the moon 66 years after the first powered flight. 2050 is not only realistic, it's pathetic.
    Thumping tables isn’t an answer either.

    The moon landing decision was made long *after* 1) Staging rockets was proved, 2) the multi stage rocket equations were developed and proven 3) fuels with sufficient ISP were developed. And demonstrated in working rocket engines.

    Which meant that scientists could tell JFK that they could land multiple tons on the moon, given a jillion dollars.

    There are large areas, in non-burning applications of fossil fuels where we don’t have the answers. Yet.

    Politicians with arts degrees demanding the tide turn won’t turn the tide.

    If Ed Quetaband was actually useful, the U.K. would be building a non-fossil fuel steel works. That technology is on the edge of practicality - first trial plants are being built elsewhere - and may offer cheaper steel in the long run.

    But he is hooked on the reductionist approach. Which, in reality, just means sending the emissions abroad with the jobs.
    Isn't the government currently supporting the Port Talbot steelworks to transition to electric arc furnaces?
    But not hydrogen reduction. So it isn’t able to handle the full steel cycle.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,899
    My big problem on the energy piece is the absolutism. Two sides of extreme positions hurling abuse at each other. The solution for the UK is a blend:

    Madness to lose 40k jobs by prematurely stopping north sea development, especially when we will just switch to imports - Labour, SNP, ScotGreens
    Madness to have policy blown in the wind by internal changes of leader - the Tories on wind
    Madness to leave us reliant on imports by shutting wind down - Reform

    I'm very happy with the LibDem position as we know we need to keep oil and gas as we transition into renewables. Will be hard to get heard, but I have a cunning plan to get out there...
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,001

    Lionel Barber [FT] on Sky states the obvious

    'Reeves original sin was to say we are not going to raise income tax, vat, or NI - terrible mistake leaving her no room to manoeuvre'

    People keep saying this but would Labour have been elected if Reeves had not ruled out those taxes going up . I’m afraid the public don’t want to hear the truth and want low taxes and good public services .
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,097
    1/2

    That article does not remotely debunk the claim that millionaires are fleeing the country.

    After several paragraphs of waffle it turns its attention to the claims of Henley & Partners and the figures from New World:

    “ But New World Wealth’s database tends to focus on entrepreneurs and company founders (around 50% of the 150,000 on its database). This group is often more mobile, with wealthier millionaires being more easily tracked than millionaires with fewer assets. Such figures do not include property millionaires.”

    This criticism is absolutely valueless for what the article is trying to claim as it instead highlights that the figures are based on precisely the people the UK needs to keep - entrepreneurs and company founders. Property millionaires are completely irrelevant as it’s such a vast cohort and potentially adds very little to the UK as a creator of growth or jobs.

    “ Second, Henley & Partners says that migration figures are based, among several other measures, on evidence of whether the millionaires in the database spend more than six months in another country. This means that someone who, for example, lived overseas for seven months of the year but retained a UK passport, home and business could be counted as an out-migrant.”

    Again this argument does not seem to understand it isn’t the zinger it thinks it is. The number of people who own a Uk passport/property/business does not equal the number who are fully resident in the UK for tax purposes. For example I’ve been considering buying a specific house in the Uk for personal reasons but I would be ensuring I did not spend more than six months, in fact closer to seven, in the UK so I do not get dragged into the tax net. So the people the article is referring to, thinking it’s showing that millionaires are not leaving the UK are, more importantly, leaving the UK for long enough periods to reduce their exposure to UK tax.

    “ All of this suggests the estimates of out-migration constitute a tiny fraction of the UK’s millionaire population. These could be the UK’s wealthiest millionaires and biggest taxpayers – but without better data it’s impossible to say for certain.”


    So having pointed out that a lot of the UK millionaires are property millionaires they then say that those leaving are a tiny proportion of UK millionaires - the fact that these are the entrepreneurs who set up and run businesses doesn’t matter to the article because that doesn’t fit their argument that it’s just a question of proportion of “millionaires” leaving without actually examining the “quality” or enhancement to the UK they give/are taking away.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,097



    2/2



    And then they point out they don’t actually have any good data so have made the argument based on feels.

    “ Some newspapers, writers, influencers and those in the finance, luxury and property sectors may have good reason to perpetuate a sense of a wealth exodus. For them it may be a good story, but we feel it needs to be challenged.”

    Then actually challenge it rather than allowing useful idiots to spread articles like this thinking they answer the problem so there isn’t a problem - maybe challenge figures by multiple sources rather than a non-challenge of figures by Henley Partners and Credit Suisse.

    It’s purely an article that is putting its hands over its eyes and shouting “lalalalala” in the hope it goes away but in no way does it challenge the reality that thousands of big tax payers and entrepreneurs are leaving or have left the UK and that really isn’t a good thing. Instead of trying to deny it’s happening, ask why and then find ways to stop or reverse the flow.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 10,722

    Another day where there will be no proof produced that Trump is alive.

    He’s died on the toilet like Elvis after too many Big Macs and there’s an insurrection inside MAGA as the last anyone saw was JD Vance going to the McDonalds drive-thru for the boss

    Unlikely.

    If Trump were gone, Vance would be wetting himself with glee.
    Wasn’t he seen yesterday leaving the White House to go golfing?

    Don’t forget that it’s a long holiday weekend (Labor Day) in the US so no one does any work.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,899
    Elon posting that "Labor" are conspiring against democracy by importing and bribing voters via small boats.

    Yup, and here is the proof that Labour started the small boat voter import process...


  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,700
    edited August 31

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    You sound like one of our contractors. So this IT transition will be complete in roughly 2130.
    Frankly, arbitrary dates are not the way to transition unless they are realistic
    We put man on the moon 66 years after the first powered flight. 2050 is not only realistic, it's pathetic.
    Thumping tables isn’t an answer either.

    The moon landing decision was made long *after* 1) Staging rockets was proved, 2) the multi stage rocket equations were developed and proven 3) fuels with sufficient ISP were developed. And demonstrated in working rocket engines.

    Which meant that scientists could tell JFK that they could land multiple tons on the moon, given a jillion dollars.

    There are large areas, in non-burning applications of fossil fuels where we don’t have the answers. Yet.

    Politicians with arts degrees demanding the tide turn won’t turn the tide.

    If Ed Quetaband was actually useful, the U.K. would be building a non-fossil fuel steel works. That technology is on the edge of practicality - first trial plants are being built elsewhere - and may offer cheaper steel in the long run.

    But he is hooked on the reductionist approach. Which, in reality, just means sending the emissions abroad with the jobs.
    I think all of that is wrong.

    The main areas of carbon emissions we still need to resolve - heating buildings, domestic transport - already have off-the-shelf solutions. EVs and heat pumps (or other electrical heating systems), both of which have been around for decades. Agriculture is only particularly tricky one, but there are some ideas there too.

    And we are building steel works that run off electricity. Indeed most of the steel in the UK is already produced that way.

    I agree that offshoring is a severe limitation on our progress so far, and the government is resolving that with CBAM in 2027. What's not to like?
    You are missing a number of areas - plastics, composites and medicines for a start.

    We’ve talked about hydrogen reduction steel making, but not much is actually happening. Keeping electricity prices high is government policy, to reduce demand - the reductionist philosophy. This means that no-one is prepared to build a new facility.
    It is not government policy to keep "keep electricity prices high". How would they even do that? They haven't increased taxes on them? They have even opened up the planning system for more pylons. What a silly conspiracy theory - where is the political motivation to keep electricity prices high?! They've even approved replacement CCGT. They inherited CCL which I think is need of a reform to reflect how less carbon intensive our electricty is, but they haven't put it up.

    If you're talking the extraction of North Sea oil to support those Pharma etc, it's not as simple as "UK oil for UK pharma" - we export most of our oil production and import that which we use in those types of industries. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't extract our own oil if it economically sensible to do so - but don't pretend it's as simple as you suggest. Ultimately the price of oil products is set in a global market and increased UK production would have no material impact on them.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,624

    Lionel Barber [FT] on Sky states the obvious

    'Reeves original sin was to say we are not going to raise income tax, vat, or NI - terrible mistake leaving her no room to manoeuvre'

    That's just another example of "politics is easy if you lop of the awkward bits"- given the wide but narrow Labour victory, not making those unwise tax pledges could have turned victory into defeat.

    "It's easy- they should just do X" is excellent politics (see Reform) but hopeless as a template for government.

    Starmer's government is poor in many ways, but it's at least sometimes trying to engage with reality. That makes it the least bad option on the shelf and an improvement on 2019-24.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,899

    Another day where there will be no proof produced that Trump is alive.

    He’s died on the toilet like Elvis after too many Big Macs and there’s an insurrection inside MAGA as the last anyone saw was JD Vance going to the McDonalds drive-thru for the boss

    Unlikely.

    If Trump were gone, Vance would be wetting himself with glee.
    Wasn’t he seen yesterday leaving the White House to go golfing?

    Don’t forget that it’s a long holiday weekend (Labor Day) in the US so no one does any work.
    Was he? There is considerable debate about how a photo posted by Getty as taken yesterday was also taken in June...

    I am sure he is alive. But something has happened which made him stop tweeting and go to ground. They are covering - badly - by having somebody tweet on his account and feeding the MAGA faithful with obvious false flag photos and videos.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 64,818
    edited August 31
    stodge said:

    Leon said:

    Guten morgen from the Altausee

    An immaculately beautiful Alpine lake, in the saltzkammergut, playground of the Nazi elite. Who hid their favourite artworks in the salt mines in the mountains

    I like it!

    It’s not nearby but if you can, visit Sterzing or Vitipeno and the magnificent Reifenstein Castle.
    I’m kinda falling in love with Austria

    The people are more charming and laid back than the Germans - still a bit punctilious but more chilled

    Everything is less expensive that Switzerland (albeit I’m still glad I’m not paying)

    The food is probably the best in the teutosphere (not a high bar but still)

    It’s often very beautiful, rammed with tradition and history

    They should really sell it as a tourist destination. People will totally lap it up. You could have “skiiing holidays” in the winter when the snows are here. Build “chalets” for them. In summer, hiking and “sightseeing” and all that

    I think I’m really onto something here

  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,097
    Leon said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:

    Guten morgen from the Altausee

    An immaculately beautiful Alpine lake, in the saltzkammergut, playground of the Nazi elite. Who hid their favourite artworks in the salt mines in the mountains

    I like it!

    It’s not nearby but if you can, visit Sterzing or Vitipeno and the magnificent Reifenstein Castle.
    I’m kinda falling in love with Austria

    The people are more charming and laid back than the Germans - still a bit punctilious but more chilled

    Everything is less expensive that Switzerland (albeit I’m still glad I’m not paying)

    The food is probably the best in the teutosphere (not a high bar but still)

    It’s often very beautiful, rammed with tradition and history

    They should really sell it as a tourist destination. People will totally lap it up. You could have “skiiing holidays” in the winter when the snows are here. Build “chalets” for them. In summer, hiking and “sightseeing” and all that

    I think I’m really onto something here

    Feels like you are just about to burst into song about climbing every mountain, female deers and edelweiss’s.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,608
    Good morning one and all.

    Excellent contribution from Mr Stodge, earlier!
    The trouble with getting old is that, if you haven't seen it all before, you've seen a lot of it. And you've seen politicians reverse their positions. Edward Heath, to mention a previous Conservative leader, and election winner, must be spinning in his grave over the anti-EU stance now adopted by the Conservative party.

    One feature of the 'migrant crisis' which upsets me is the apparent assumption that all migrants are trying to get here because they think UK is a land flowing with milk and honey. I knew some of the Asians expelled from Uganda back in the 70's; I would say that almost without exception they were anxious to look after themselves and their families, and I suspect that that applies to those fleeing persecution and disaster now. I might grumble about the way some of them have turned out.... our local MP, Dame Priti, was the child of such immigrants, but still!
    Complaint is made that many of todays immigrants are 'young men'; hasn't it always been the case that it's young men who travel to seek better conditions, with aim of bringing their dependents afterwards?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,816
    nico67 said:

    Lionel Barber [FT] on Sky states the obvious

    'Reeves original sin was to say we are not going to raise income tax, vat, or NI - terrible mistake leaving her no room to manoeuvre'

    People keep saying this but would Labour have been elected if Reeves had not ruled out those taxes going up . I’m afraid the public don’t want to hear the truth and want low taxes and good public services .
    It would have the tories a potent wedge issue, that's for sure so you can understand the politics behind it.

    Will the tories go into the next GE promising to raise income tax, NI or VAT? Absolutely not.
  • ajbajb Posts: 165
    Four years is a very long time in politics, but right now it looks plausible that we will have a Trump-style authoritarian government after the next election. And David Allen Green points out quite correctly that the UK constitution provides no protection against a government that abandons all self-restraint.

    There is a case to call on the left to hold their noses and not rock the boat. But that case relies on the centre doing their bit to keep out the right. Right now, it seems like Starmer is presuming on the left's support and using it as licence to pander to the illiberal right; in the hope of winning back potential reform voters. He is failing to go in to bat for the rule of law, failing to point out when Farage and reform cross over into racist campaigning against immigrants who have a legal right to remain - or even citizenship . This is a stupid strategy because it legitimizes the very people who are his main electoral rivals.

    There is an alternative case that the left, and anyone who wants to see the rule of law extend beyond the next election, that as much pressure as possible needs to be put on the government and Starmer to change tack.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,966
    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:

    Guten morgen from the Altausee

    An immaculately beautiful Alpine lake, in the saltzkammergut, playground of the Nazi elite. Who hid their favourite artworks in the salt mines in the mountains

    I like it!

    It’s not nearby but if you can, visit Sterzing or Vitipeno and the magnificent Reifenstein Castle.
    I’m kinda falling in love with Austria

    The people are more charming and laid back than the Germans - still a bit punctilious but more chilled

    Everything is less expensive that Switzerland (albeit I’m still glad I’m not paying)

    The food is probably the best in the teutosphere (not a high bar but still)

    It’s often very beautiful, rammed with tradition and history

    They should really sell it as a tourist destination. People will totally lap it up. You could have “skiiing holidays” in the winter when the snows are here. Build “chalets” for them. In summer, hiking and “sightseeing” and all that

    I think I’m really onto something here

    Feels like you are just about to burst into song about climbing every mountain, female deers and edelweiss’s.
    Or Tomorrow Belongs to Blond Birds in Dirndls.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,624
    Dura_Ace said:

    nico67 said:

    Lionel Barber [FT] on Sky states the obvious

    'Reeves original sin was to say we are not going to raise income tax, vat, or NI - terrible mistake leaving her no room to manoeuvre'

    People keep saying this but would Labour have been elected if Reeves had not ruled out those taxes going up . I’m afraid the public don’t want to hear the truth and want low taxes and good public services .
    It would have the tories a potent wedge issue, that's for sure so you can understand the politics behind it.

    Will the tories go into the next GE promising to raise income tax, NI or VAT? Absolutely not.
    Didn't Rishi and Jez (H) spend the 2024 campaign promising tax cuts?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,667
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    You sound like one of our contractors. So this IT transition will be complete in roughly 2130.
    Frankly, arbitrary dates are not the way to transition unless they are realistic
    We put man on the moon 66 years after the first powered flight. 2050 is not only realistic, it's pathetic.
    Thumping tables isn’t an answer either.

    The moon landing decision was made long *after* 1) Staging rockets was proved, 2) the multi stage rocket equations were developed and proven 3) fuels with sufficient ISP were developed. And demonstrated in working rocket engines.

    Which meant that scientists could tell JFK that they could land multiple tons on the moon, given a jillion dollars.

    There are large areas, in non-burning applications of fossil fuels where we don’t have the answers. Yet.

    Politicians with arts degrees demanding the tide turn won’t turn the tide.

    If Ed Quetaband was actually useful, the U.K. would be building a non-fossil fuel steel works. That technology is on the edge of practicality - first trial plants are being built elsewhere - and may offer cheaper steel in the long run.

    But he is hooked on the reductionist approach. Which, in reality, just means sending the emissions abroad with the jobs.
    I think all of that is wrong.

    The main areas of carbon emissions we still need to resolve - heating buildings, domestic transport - already have off-the-shelf solutions. EVs and heat pumps (or other electrical heating systems), both of which have been around for decades. Agriculture is only particularly tricky one, but there are some ideas there too.

    And we are building steel works that run off electricity. Indeed most of the steel in the UK is already produced that way.

    I agree that offshoring is a severe limitation on our progress so far, and the government is resolving that with CBAM in 2027. What's not to like?
    You are missing a number of areas - plastics, composites and medicines for a start.

    We’ve talked about hydrogen reduction steel making, but not much is actually happening. Keeping electricity prices high is government policy, to reduce demand - the reductionist philosophy. This means that no-one is prepared to build a new facility.
    It is not government policy to keep "keep electricity prices high". How would they even do that? They haven't increased taxes on them? They have even opened up the planning system for more pylons. What a silly conspiracy theory - where is the political motivation to keep electricity prices high?! They've even approved replacement CCGT. They inherited CCL which I think is need of a reform to reflect how less carbon intensive our electricty is, but they haven't put it up.

    If you're talking the extraction of North Sea oil to support those Pharma etc, it's not as simple as "UK oil for UK pharma" - we export most of our oil production and import that which we use in those types of industries. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't extract our own oil if it economically sensible to do so - but don't pretend it's as simple as you suggest. Ultimately the price of oil products is set in a global market and increased UK production would have no material impact on them.
    Coupling the electricity price to gas prices means that potentially lower prices from renewables are locked out. See calls for a more segmented market.

    And then we have the various levys.

    The policy of keeping energy prices high to promote reductions in consumption has been discussed and debated for quite a while.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,686
    FPT
    Taz said:

    For my fellow PB Whovians this may well be of interest

    bondegezou viewcode ydoethur

    I do apologise if I’ve omitted anyone

    https://x.com/rewindtvuk/status/1961821213065707721?s=61

    Thank you for that @Taz ! Yes, it does look interesting. I don't have a telly so I'll have to wait until it's leaked onto YouTube but I'll watch it when it arrives.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,465
    edited August 31

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    Net Zero gets branded as zero emissions. This is incorrect. It’s balancing the emissions against renewables to get to a net zero, not an actual zero.

    I’d rebrand it. “Energy Freedom”.
    We can’t really refine our own oil so we have to export it - we’re reliant on imports.
    We can’t bring up enough gas now - a quarter of power is from burning gas and we have to import half. Burn more gas even with more production = reliance on imports.
    Wind? That is ours. Reform demand that we literally switch the windfarms off. The “patriots” in Reform want us reliant on foreigners.
    Wind and solar have been a real success, and by the way a lot of that was under the conservatives

    Reform and Trump are deranged about windfarms
    They haven't been a success except in driving our industrial energy prices to be the highest in the world.

    https://www.rhnuttall.co.uk/blog/industrial-electricity-prices-by-country/

    Neither is wind 'ours' - this is simply a barefaced lie:

    Countries owning UK wind farms
    As of the latest available data from 2024, the companies owning British wind farms are primarily based in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Spain, China, Japan, and the United States, with significant state-owned or majority state-owned entities from these countries holding substantial stakes, particularly in offshore wind capacity.

    AI Answer - dyor

    These foreign interests invest in British wind capacity because it's a licence to print money. The Government can never stop adding to wind capacity or allow wind farms to fail because it is seen as a crucial measure of success. Therefore capital pours in, the same way it does to University accomodation, because the bottom line is that the taxpayer is on the hook for it.

    That isn't a success.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,966
    Protector of our young women update.




    https://x.com/Cobratate/status/1962053969544376807
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,184

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:

    Guten morgen from the Altausee

    An immaculately beautiful Alpine lake, in the saltzkammergut, playground of the Nazi elite. Who hid their favourite artworks in the salt mines in the mountains

    I like it!

    It’s not nearby but if you can, visit Sterzing or Vitipeno and the magnificent Reifenstein Castle.
    I’m kinda falling in love with Austria

    The people are more charming and laid back than the Germans - still a bit punctilious but more chilled

    Everything is less expensive that Switzerland (albeit I’m still glad I’m not paying)

    The food is probably the best in the teutosphere (not a high bar but still)

    It’s often very beautiful, rammed with tradition and history

    They should really sell it as a tourist destination. People will totally lap it up. You could have “skiiing holidays” in the winter when the snows are here. Build “chalets” for them. In summer, hiking and “sightseeing” and all that

    I think I’m really onto something here

    Feels like you are just about to burst into song about climbing every mountain, female deers and edelweiss’s.
    Or Tomorrow Belongs to Blond Birds in Dirndls.
    Just a shame about this 'snow' stuff and 'glaciers' disappearing at a rate of knots.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,748
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    You sound like one of our contractors. So this IT transition will be complete in roughly 2130.
    Frankly, arbitrary dates are not the way to transition unless they are realistic
    We put man on the moon 66 years after the first powered flight. 2050 is not only realistic, it's pathetic.
    Thumping tables isn’t an answer either.

    The moon landing decision was made long *after* 1) Staging rockets was proved, 2) the multi stage rocket equations were developed and proven 3) fuels with sufficient ISP were developed. And demonstrated in working rocket engines.

    Which meant that scientists could tell JFK that they could land multiple tons on the moon, given a jillion dollars.

    There are large areas, in non-burning applications of fossil fuels where we don’t have the answers. Yet.

    Politicians with arts degrees demanding the tide turn won’t turn the tide.

    If Ed Quetaband was actually useful, the U.K. would be building a non-fossil fuel steel works. That technology is on the edge of practicality - first trial plants are being built elsewhere - and may offer cheaper steel in the long run.

    But he is hooked on the reductionist approach. Which, in reality, just means sending the emissions abroad with the jobs.
    I think all of that is wrong.

    The main areas of carbon emissions we still need to resolve - heating buildings, domestic transport - already have off-the-shelf solutions. EVs and heat pumps (or other electrical heating systems), both of which have been around for decades. Agriculture is only particularly tricky one, but there are some ideas there too.

    And we are building steel works that run off electricity. Indeed most of the steel in the UK is already produced that way.

    I agree that offshoring is a severe limitation on our progress so far, and the government is resolving that with CBAM in 2027. What's not to like?
    You are missing a number of areas - plastics, composites and medicines for a start.

    We’ve talked about hydrogen reduction steel making, but not much is actually happening. Keeping electricity prices high is government policy, to reduce demand - the reductionist philosophy. This means that no-one is prepared to build a new facility.
    It is not government policy to keep "keep electricity prices high". How would they even do that? They haven't increased taxes on them? They have even opened up the planning system for more pylons. What a silly conspiracy theory - where is the political motivation to keep electricity prices high?! They've even approved replacement CCGT. They inherited CCL which I think is need of a reform to reflect how less carbon intensive our electricty is, but they haven't put it up.

    If you're talking the extraction of North Sea oil to support those Pharma etc, it's not as simple as "UK oil for UK pharma" - we export most of our oil production and import that which we use in those types of industries. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't extract our own oil if it economically sensible to do so - but don't pretend it's as simple as you suggest. Ultimately the price of oil products is set in a global market and increased UK production would have no material impact on them.
    But a very material effect on our balance of payments.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,748

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    You sound like one of our contractors. So this IT transition will be complete in roughly 2130.
    Frankly, arbitrary dates are not the way to transition unless they are realistic
    We put man on the moon 66 years after the first powered flight. 2050 is not only realistic, it's pathetic.
    Thumping tables isn’t an answer either.

    The moon landing decision was made long *after* 1) Staging rockets was proved, 2) the multi stage rocket equations were developed and proven 3) fuels with sufficient ISP were developed. And demonstrated in working rocket engines.

    Which meant that scientists could tell JFK that they could land multiple tons on the moon, given a jillion dollars.

    There are large areas, in non-burning applications of fossil fuels where we don’t have the answers. Yet.

    Politicians with arts degrees demanding the tide turn won’t turn the tide.

    If Ed Quetaband was actually useful, the U.K. would be building a non-fossil fuel steel works. That technology is on the edge of practicality - first trial plants are being built elsewhere - and may offer cheaper steel in the long run.

    But he is hooked on the reductionist approach. Which, in reality, just means sending the emissions abroad with the jobs.
    I think all of that is wrong.

    The main areas of carbon emissions we still need to resolve - heating buildings, domestic transport - already have off-the-shelf solutions. EVs and heat pumps (or other electrical heating systems), both of which have been around for decades. Agriculture is only particularly tricky one, but there are some ideas there too.

    And we are building steel works that run off electricity. Indeed most of the steel in the UK is already produced that way.

    I agree that offshoring is a severe limitation on our progress so far, and the government is resolving that with CBAM in 2027. What's not to like?
    You are missing a number of areas - plastics, composites and medicines for a start.

    We’ve talked about hydrogen reduction steel making, but not much is actually happening. Keeping electricity prices high is government policy, to reduce demand - the reductionist philosophy. This means that no-one is prepared to build a new facility.
    It is not government policy to keep "keep electricity prices high". How would they even do that? They haven't increased taxes on them? They have even opened up the planning system for more pylons. What a silly conspiracy theory - where is the political motivation to keep electricity prices high?! They've even approved replacement CCGT. They inherited CCL which I think is need of a reform to reflect how less carbon intensive our electricty is, but they haven't put it up.

    If you're talking the extraction of North Sea oil to support those Pharma etc, it's not as simple as "UK oil for UK pharma" - we export most of our oil production and import that which we use in those types of industries. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't extract our own oil if it economically sensible to do so - but don't pretend it's as simple as you suggest. Ultimately the price of oil products is set in a global market and increased UK production would have no material impact on them.
    Coupling the electricity price to gas prices means that potentially lower prices from renewables are locked out. See calls for a more segmented market.

    And then we have the various levys.

    The policy of keeping energy prices high to promote reductions in consumption has been discussed and debated for quite a while.
    Yes, it is bonkers.
    Meanwhile large parts of the world are racing towards cheap, green energy abundance with solar.

    Milliband might have been a decent radical reformer, had he an ounce of common sense. As it is, he's vying for worst minister in the cabinet.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 15,939
    edited August 31
    Carnyx said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:

    Guten morgen from the Altausee

    An immaculately beautiful Alpine lake, in the saltzkammergut, playground of the Nazi elite. Who hid their favourite artworks in the salt mines in the mountains

    I like it!

    It’s not nearby but if you can, visit Sterzing or Vitipeno and the magnificent Reifenstein Castle.
    I’m kinda falling in love with Austria

    The people are more charming and laid back than the Germans - still a bit punctilious but more chilled

    Everything is less expensive that Switzerland (albeit I’m still glad I’m not paying)

    The food is probably the best in the teutosphere (not a high bar but still)

    It’s often very beautiful, rammed with tradition and history

    They should really sell it as a tourist destination. People will totally lap it up. You could have “skiiing holidays” in the winter when the snows are here. Build “chalets” for them. In summer, hiking and “sightseeing” and all that

    I think I’m really onto something here

    Feels like you are just about to burst into song about climbing every mountain, female deers and edelweiss’s.
    Or Tomorrow Belongs to Blond Birds in Dirndls.
    Just a shame about this 'snow' stuff and 'glaciers' disappearing at a rate of knots.
    Time to get with the programme. Global warming is over, victim of the Overton window.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,314
    Leon said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:

    Guten morgen from the Altausee

    An immaculately beautiful Alpine lake, in the saltzkammergut, playground of the Nazi elite. Who hid their favourite artworks in the salt mines in the mountains

    I like it!

    It’s not nearby but if you can, visit Sterzing or Vitipeno and the magnificent Reifenstein Castle.
    I’m kinda falling in love with Austria

    The people are more charming and laid back than the Germans - still a bit punctilious but more chilled

    Everything is less expensive that Switzerland (albeit I’m still glad I’m not paying)

    The food is probably the best in the teutosphere (not a high bar but still)

    It’s often very beautiful, rammed with tradition and history

    They should really sell it as a tourist destination. People will totally lap it up. You could have “skiiing holidays” in the winter when the snows are here. Build “chalets” for them. In summer, hiking and “sightseeing” and all that

    I think I’m really onto something here

    I've had many skiing holidays in Austria. St Anton and Lech. Wonderful.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,184
    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    You sound like one of our contractors. So this IT transition will be complete in roughly 2130.
    Frankly, arbitrary dates are not the way to transition unless they are realistic
    We put man on the moon 66 years after the first powered flight. 2050 is not only realistic, it's pathetic.
    Thumping tables isn’t an answer either.

    The moon landing decision was made long *after* 1) Staging rockets was proved, 2) the multi stage rocket equations were developed and proven 3) fuels with sufficient ISP were developed. And demonstrated in working rocket engines.

    Which meant that scientists could tell JFK that they could land multiple tons on the moon, given a jillion dollars.

    There are large areas, in non-burning applications of fossil fuels where we don’t have the answers. Yet.

    Politicians with arts degrees demanding the tide turn won’t turn the tide.

    If Ed Quetaband was actually useful, the U.K. would be building a non-fossil fuel steel works. That technology is on the edge of practicality - first trial plants are being built elsewhere - and may offer cheaper steel in the long run.

    But he is hooked on the reductionist approach. Which, in reality, just means sending the emissions abroad with the jobs.
    I think all of that is wrong.

    The main areas of carbon emissions we still need to resolve - heating buildings, domestic transport - already have off-the-shelf solutions. EVs and heat pumps (or other electrical heating systems), both of which have been around for decades. Agriculture is only particularly tricky one, but there are some ideas there too.

    And we are building steel works that run off electricity. Indeed most of the steel in the UK is already produced that way.

    I agree that offshoring is a severe limitation on our progress so far, and the government is resolving that with CBAM in 2027. What's not to like?
    You are missing a number of areas - plastics, composites and medicines for a start.

    We’ve talked about hydrogen reduction steel making, but not much is actually happening. Keeping electricity prices high is government policy, to reduce demand - the reductionist philosophy. This means that no-one is prepared to build a new facility.
    It is not government policy to keep "keep electricity prices high". How would they even do that? They haven't increased taxes on them? They have even opened up the planning system for more pylons. What a silly conspiracy theory - where is the political motivation to keep electricity prices high?! They've even approved replacement CCGT. They inherited CCL which I think is need of a reform to reflect how less carbon intensive our electricty is, but they haven't put it up.

    If you're talking the extraction of North Sea oil to support those Pharma etc, it's not as simple as "UK oil for UK pharma" - we export most of our oil production and import that which we use in those types of industries. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't extract our own oil if it economically sensible to do so - but don't pretend it's as simple as you suggest. Ultimately the price of oil products is set in a global market and increased UK production would have no material impact on them.
    Coupling the electricity price to gas prices means that potentially lower prices from renewables are locked out. See calls for a more segmented market.

    And then we have the various levys.

    The policy of keeping energy prices high to promote reductions in consumption has been discussed and debated for quite a while.
    Yes, it is bonkers.
    Meanwhile large parts of the world are racing towards cheap, green energy abundance with solar.

    Milliband might have been a decent radical reformer, had he an ounce of common sense. As it is, he's vying for worst minister in the cabinet.
    Just wait till his refusal of local energy pricing enters fully into the political consciousness in Scotland, Wales, and the highland zone of England.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,184
    TimS said:



    Carnyx said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:

    Guten morgen from the Altausee

    An immaculately beautiful Alpine lake, in the saltzkammergut, playground of the Nazi elite. Who hid their favourite artworks in the salt mines in the mountains

    I like it!

    It’s not nearby but if you can, visit Sterzing or Vitipeno and the magnificent Reifenstein Castle.
    I’m kinda falling in love with Austria

    The people are more charming and laid back than the Germans - still a bit punctilious but more chilled

    Everything is less expensive that Switzerland (albeit I’m still glad I’m not paying)

    The food is probably the best in the teutosphere (not a high bar but still)

    It’s often very beautiful, rammed with tradition and history

    They should really sell it as a tourist destination. People will totally lap it up. You could have “skiiing holidays” in the winter when the snows are here. Build “chalets” for them. In summer, hiking and “sightseeing” and all that

    I think I’m really onto something here

    Feels like you are just about to burst into song about climbing every mountain, female deers and edelweiss’s.
    Or Tomorrow Belongs to Blond Birds in Dirndls.
    Just a shame about this 'snow' stuff and 'glaciers' disappearing at a rate of knots.
    Time to get with the programme. Global warming is over, victim of the Overton window.
    What are they going to use, recycled plastic granules?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,966
    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    You sound like one of our contractors. So this IT transition will be complete in roughly 2130.
    Frankly, arbitrary dates are not the way to transition unless they are realistic
    We put man on the moon 66 years after the first powered flight. 2050 is not only realistic, it's pathetic.
    Thumping tables isn’t an answer either.

    The moon landing decision was made long *after* 1) Staging rockets was proved, 2) the multi stage rocket equations were developed and proven 3) fuels with sufficient ISP were developed. And demonstrated in working rocket engines.

    Which meant that scientists could tell JFK that they could land multiple tons on the moon, given a jillion dollars.

    There are large areas, in non-burning applications of fossil fuels where we don’t have the answers. Yet.

    Politicians with arts degrees demanding the tide turn won’t turn the tide.

    If Ed Quetaband was actually useful, the U.K. would be building a non-fossil fuel steel works. That technology is on the edge of practicality - first trial plants are being built elsewhere - and may offer cheaper steel in the long run.

    But he is hooked on the reductionist approach. Which, in reality, just means sending the emissions abroad with the jobs.
    I think all of that is wrong.

    The main areas of carbon emissions we still need to resolve - heating buildings, domestic transport - already have off-the-shelf solutions. EVs and heat pumps (or other electrical heating systems), both of which have been around for decades. Agriculture is only particularly tricky one, but there are some ideas there too.

    And we are building steel works that run off electricity. Indeed most of the steel in the UK is already produced that way.

    I agree that offshoring is a severe limitation on our progress so far, and the government is resolving that with CBAM in 2027. What's not to like?
    You are missing a number of areas - plastics, composites and medicines for a start.

    We’ve talked about hydrogen reduction steel making, but not much is actually happening. Keeping electricity prices high is government policy, to reduce demand - the reductionist philosophy. This means that no-one is prepared to build a new facility.
    It is not government policy to keep "keep electricity prices high". How would they even do that? They haven't increased taxes on them? They have even opened up the planning system for more pylons. What a silly conspiracy theory - where is the political motivation to keep electricity prices high?! They've even approved replacement CCGT. They inherited CCL which I think is need of a reform to reflect how less carbon intensive our electricty is, but they haven't put it up.

    If you're talking the extraction of North Sea oil to support those Pharma etc, it's not as simple as "UK oil for UK pharma" - we export most of our oil production and import that which we use in those types of industries. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't extract our own oil if it economically sensible to do so - but don't pretend it's as simple as you suggest. Ultimately the price of oil products is set in a global market and increased UK production would have no material impact on them.
    Coupling the electricity price to gas prices means that potentially lower prices from renewables are locked out. See calls for a more segmented market.

    And then we have the various levys.

    The policy of keeping energy prices high to promote reductions in consumption has been discussed and debated for quite a while.
    Yes, it is bonkers.
    Meanwhile large parts of the world are racing towards cheap, green energy abundance with solar.

    Milliband might have been a decent radical reformer, had he an ounce of common sense. As it is, he's vying for worst minister in the cabinet.
    Just wait till his refusal of local energy pricing enters fully into the political consciousness in Scotland, Wales, and the highland zone of England.
    I'm sure we can depend on the BBC to bring it to the attention of the voters.
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,822
    boulay said:

    1/2

    That article does not remotely debunk the claim that millionaires are fleeing the country.

    After several paragraphs of waffle it turns its attention to the claims of Henley & Partners and the figures from New World:

    “ But New World Wealth’s database tends to focus on entrepreneurs and company founders (around 50% of the 150,000 on its database). This group is often more mobile, with wealthier millionaires being more easily tracked than millionaires with fewer assets. Such figures do not include property millionaires.”

    This criticism is absolutely valueless for what the article is trying to claim as it instead highlights that the figures are based on precisely the people the UK needs to keep - entrepreneurs and company founders. Property millionaires are completely irrelevant as it’s such a vast cohort and potentially adds very little to the UK as a creator of growth or jobs.

    “ Second, Henley & Partners says that migration figures are based, among several other measures, on evidence of whether the millionaires in the database spend more than six months in another country. This means that someone who, for example, lived overseas for seven months of the year but retained a UK passport, home and business could be counted as an out-migrant.”

    Again this argument does not seem to understand it isn’t the zinger it thinks it is. The number of people who own a Uk passport/property/business does not equal the number who are fully resident in the UK for tax purposes. For example I’ve been considering buying a specific house in the Uk for personal reasons but I would be ensuring I did not spend more than six months, in fact closer to seven, in the UK so I do not get dragged into the tax net. So the people the article is referring to, thinking it’s showing that millionaires are not leaving the UK are, more importantly, leaving the UK for long enough periods to reduce their exposure to UK tax.

    “ All of this suggests the estimates of out-migration constitute a tiny fraction of the UK’s millionaire population. These could be the UK’s wealthiest millionaires and biggest taxpayers – but without better data it’s impossible to say for certain.”


    So having pointed out that a lot of the UK millionaires are property millionaires they then say that those leaving are a tiny proportion of UK millionaires - the fact that these are the entrepreneurs who set up and run businesses doesn’t matter to the article because that doesn’t fit their argument that it’s just a question of proportion of “millionaires” leaving without actually examining the “quality” or enhancement to the UK they give/are taking away.
    You’re right. The article claims 702,000 homes worth a million and above.

    It also doesn’t claim they are not leaving just that it’s a small fraction as millionaires now includes people with high value properties/large pension pots. A big difference between wealth creators and those who are portable and those who are not.

    It looks like it’s recycled from an article from Richard Murphy’s site.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,680

    FPT, with regards to North Sea oil and gas:

    Jobs
    Energy security
    Balance payments
    Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators

    Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.

    Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.

    I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.

    Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
    Re your last sentence neither do I

    For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
    Net Zero gets branded as zero emissions. This is incorrect. It’s balancing the emissions against renewables to get to a net zero, not an actual zero.

    I’d rebrand it. “Energy Freedom”.
    We can’t really refine our own oil so we have to export it - we’re reliant on imports.
    We can’t bring up enough gas now - a quarter of power is from burning gas and we have to import half. Burn more gas even with more production = reliance on imports.
    Wind? That is ours. Reform demand that we literally switch the windfarms off. The “patriots” in Reform want us reliant on foreigners.
    Wind and solar have been a real success, and by the way a lot of that was under the conservatives

    Reform and Trump are deranged about windfarms
    They haven't been a success except in driving our industrial energy prices to be the highest in the world.

    https://www.rhnuttall.co.uk/blog/industrial-electricity-prices-by-country/

    Neither is wind 'ours' - this is simply a barefaced lie:

    Countries owning UK wind farms
    As of the latest available data from 2024, the companies owning British wind farms are primarily based in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Spain, China, Japan, and the United States, with significant state-owned or majority state-owned entities from these countries holding substantial stakes, particularly in offshore wind capacity.

    AI Answer - dyor

    These foreign interests invest in British wind capacity because it's a licence to print money. The Government can never stop adding to wind capacity or allow wind farms to fail because it is seen as a crucial measure of success. Therefore capital pours in, the same way it does to University accomodation, because the bottom line is that the taxpayer is on the hook for it.

    That isn't a success.
    Good luck in selling that

    It most certainly is a success as is solar

    And I type this whilst looking out over the hugely successful Gwynt y Mor windfarm started in 2015 under the conservatives
Sign In or Register to comment.