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.
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
Last went to Austria way back in 2003. Visited Vienna for a week and rather liked it, the architecture, the old trams, and I remember going to a very nice ice cream place near the cathedral called Zanoni e Zanoni. Wonder if it still exists.
Some I know had a young family member who was a ski rep in Austria. There's already skiing in Austria! Maybe Leon was joking.
Even I can see he's joking here
And a pretty accurate summary of Austria's charms vs Deutschland und Schweiz.
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
I thought he was excellent on LBC today, talked a lot of sense re what the public want etc
He’s certainly a good media performer.
For sure makes Starmer and crew look and sound like the real donkeys they are and actually knows what the public want rather than being tin eared and stuck with fantasy dogma.
Of little consequence, but I've just seen what the second tier of English Rugby has been renamed to. It was bad enough that rugby has followed the ridiculous precedent set by football that the top tier is 'Premiership', second tier is 'chqampionship', third tier is league one, etc. That was stupid, but at least had a smidgin of dignity. But now, the second tier has been renamed "Champ Rugby". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_Rugby
This can only come from the sort of marketing executive who thinks the secret to success is to annoy as many people as possible (see also: Brecon Beacons National Park).
Of little consequence, but I've just seen what the second tier of English Rugby has been renamed to. It was bad enough that rugby has followed the ridiculous precedent set by football that the top tier is 'Premiership', second tier is 'chqampionship', third tier is league one, etc. That was stupid, but at least had a smidgin of dignity. But now, the second tier has been renamed "Champ Rugby". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_Rugby
This can only come from the sort of marketing executive who thinks the secret to success is to annoy as many people as possible (see also: Brecon Beacons National Park).
Of little consequence, but I've just seen what the second tier of English Rugby has been renamed to. It was bad enough that rugby has followed the ridiculous precedent set by football that the top tier is 'Premiership', second tier is 'chqampionship', third tier is league one, etc. That was stupid, but at least had a smidgin of dignity. But now, the second tier has been renamed "Champ Rugby". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_Rugby
This can only come from the sort of marketing executive who thinks the secret to success is to annoy as many people as possible (see also: Brecon Beacons National Park).
Of little consequence, but I've just seen what the second tier of English Rugby has been renamed to. It was bad enough that rugby has followed the ridiculous precedent set by football that the top tier is 'Premiership', second tier is 'chqampionship', third tier is league one, etc. That was stupid, but at least had a smidgin of dignity. But now, the second tier has been renamed "Champ Rugby". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_Rugby
This can only come from the sort of marketing executive who thinks the secret to success is to annoy as many people as possible (see also: Brecon Beacons National Park).
Of little consequence, but I've just seen what the second tier of English Rugby has been renamed to. It was bad enough that rugby has followed the ridiculous precedent set by football that the top tier is 'Premiership', second tier is 'chqampionship', third tier is league one, etc. That was stupid, but at least had a smidgin of dignity. But now, the second tier has been renamed "Champ Rugby". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_Rugby
This can only come from the sort of marketing executive who thinks the secret to success is to annoy as many people as possible (see also: Brecon Beacons National Park).
Brought to you by the team behind Monkey Tennis.
And The Hundred.
Apparently next year’s Hundred is going to be 20% better!
Of little consequence, but I've just seen what the second tier of English Rugby has been renamed to. It was bad enough that rugby has followed the ridiculous precedent set by football that the top tier is 'Premiership', second tier is 'chqampionship', third tier is league one, etc. That was stupid, but at least had a smidgin of dignity. But now, the second tier has been renamed "Champ Rugby". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_Rugby
This can only come from the sort of marketing executive who thinks the secret to success is to annoy as many people as possible (see also: Brecon Beacons National Park).
Brought to you by the team behind Monkey Tennis.
There’s an Alan Partridge fan podcast called ‘Monkey Tennis’ and it’s ruddy good.
Of little consequence, but I've just seen what the second tier of English Rugby has been renamed to. It was bad enough that rugby has followed the ridiculous precedent set by football that the top tier is 'Premiership', second tier is 'chqampionship', third tier is league one, etc. That was stupid, but at least had a smidgin of dignity. But now, the second tier has been renamed "Champ Rugby". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_Rugby
This can only come from the sort of marketing executive who thinks the secret to success is to annoy as many people as possible (see also: Brecon Beacons National Park).
Brought to you by the team behind Monkey Tennis.
One of them, an absurd joke on the BBC.
The other, tennis played by monkeys.
(Apart from the mens/womens double-header thing. More should be made of that. Possibly somehow combining the two matches into one result. That's good, even if it was initially a COVID kludge.)
Crazy quotes from anonymous U.S. officials saying the Europeans are the ones standing in the way of a peace deal. Putin laid the groundwork for this kind of theory in Alaska and it appears to be taking hold of some in the White House. https://x.com/DougKlain/status/1961833625814495284
Crazy quotes from anonymous U.S. officials saying the Europeans are the ones standing in the way of a peace deal. Putin laid the groundwork for this kind of theory in Alaska and it appears to be taking hold of some in the White House. https://x.com/DougKlain/status/1961833625814495284
There are plenty there ready to row in behind this narrative.
"I'd have won me that Nobel Prize if it weren't for those pesky European kids..."
I've mentioned before that we had a committee that used to sit in the 50's into the 60's to decide where the boundary lay between the UK and Norway. At some point the Norwegians laid on a slap-up lunch and our negotatiators said "OK, you can have it where you think it lies."
Which was a purely academic exercise - until all the massive Norwegian oil fields were found to lay in the bit we had conceded.
Norway has a massive wealth fund for the ages - as a result of one slap-up lunch.
I've mentioned before that we had a committee that used to sit in the 50's into the 60's to decide where the boundary lay between the UK and Norway. At some point the Norwegians laid on a slap-up lunch and our negotatiators said "OK, you can have it where you think it lies."
Which was a purely academic exercise - until all the massive Norwegian oil fields were found to lay in the bit we had conceded.
Norway has a massive wealth fund for the ages - as a result of one slap-up lunch.
Also as a result of having the smarts & foresight to set one up. Not enough slap up lunches & smarts for Mags & co obviously.
I've mentioned before that we had a committee that used to sit in the 50's into the 60's to decide where the boundary lay between the UK and Norway. At some point the Norwegians laid on a slap-up lunch and our negotatiators said "OK, you can have it where you think it lies."
Which was a purely academic exercise - until all the massive Norwegian oil fields were found to lay in the bit we had conceded.
Norway has a massive wealth fund for the ages - as a result of one slap-up lunch.
Bit like Spike Milligan's take on how the border between N. Ireland and the Republic was determined; two civil servants from each side holding one pencil and drawing a line.
I've extracted the "switching matrix" showing how 2024 voters have changed parties from the five latest polls.
Some surprises: * 70% of those who did not vote in 2024 and say they'll vote this time support Reform. This accounts for about 5-7% of the Reform vote share. Mmm (Find Out Now) * Only 10% of past Labour voters say they'll vote Reform. And 10% of past LD voters also say they'll vote Reform! There's a surprise.
Non-surprises: * Labour and Tory lose about 40% of their past voters. * Reform loses only 7% * About 30% of past Tory voters say they'll vote Reform next time.
These are averages from five different pollsters. This switching matrix excludes those who didn't vote last time including youngsters and those who can't be bothered.
Two observations:
LD voter retention isn't that much better than Lab or Con, which is surprising.
Nobody who actually voted Green is switching to Sultanarama. It is just the Gaza crowd who have jumped on the Green bandwagon who are turning to a sexier option.
Yes the LD retention figure is surprising. Ignore the YP column. I shouldn't have put it in. Most pollsters don't poll for YP.
Very interesting work, and I think you should add a little commentary and submit it to TSE as a post.
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.
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
What is it that you think I'm selling?
I am sure the wind farm is lovely and shiny and big, as is your energy bill, which you acknowledged to me was still well above pre-crisis levels, despite all the freebies you were so delighted about.
Don't get me wrong, it is a huge success - for those who own windfarms.
Energy bills are high because they are set by gas prices most of the time. When gas drops out of the system and we only use wind, then energy prices collapse like a brick.
Because wind is cheap, gas is not.
There are many broken elements to our energy system. Replacing expensive gas with cheap wind is not one of them.
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Sizewell C will cost more than 5x that, probably over £80bn to get the lights on.
Jeesh we need to get out of it and just do SMRs.
With our regulation and planning laws, it's not a given that they'd be significantly cheaper.
We (or rather S Korea and/or China) already know how to build conventional nuclear massively cheaper than Sizewell. It's just not possible in the UK, for now.
The biggest single disappointment from this government is their promise to reform our planning laws to make going stuff easier.
They've nibbled around the edges, but that's about it.
Indeed. Despite disagreeing with most of their positioning I lent them my vote last time purely to get planning reform as it is the number one most important thing we need in this country, by a long way. It is holding us back in every field, not just housing but industry, energy, transport and more.
They've piddled about tinkering with it, but done jack shit overall.
I don't know who I could possibly vote for next time. The Lib Dems pander to the NIMBYs, the Tories are still a joke and Reform are racist.
The green belt should be abolished, our population has grown yet our cities have not. They should be sprawling to accommodate our population growth.
Or greater density. Density is useful, as it makes public transport and other public services more cost-effective to deliver
We already have density in our cities. Greater density often just means smaller homes and fewer gardens.
If our population grows by 10% then the land constructed on should be growing by ~10% too.
And large parts of England will end up like Malta or the Randstad.
If you build up, you can build same-size homes as you build them one on top of the other. Not everyone needs or wants a garden.
We already do build up, 2 story homes are already the default and 3 story is becoming more common too.
I have no qualms with building up, great. But building out is essential too, given our huge population growth.
You're right that not everyone wants a garden and anyone who doesn't should be able to choose a home without one, however anyone who does should be able to choose a home with one.
We should liberalise planning and let people choose what they want. If they want a flat without a garden, good for them. If they want a house without a garden, good for them. If they want a house with a garden, good for them.
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.
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
What is it that you think I'm selling?
I am sure the wind farm is lovely and shiny and big, as is your energy bill, which you acknowledged to me was still well above pre-crisis levels, despite all the freebies you were so delighted about.
Don't get me wrong, it is a huge success - for those who own windfarms.
Energy bills are high because they are set by gas prices most of the time. When gas drops out of the system and we only use wind, then energy prices collapse like a brick.
Because wind is cheap, gas is not.
There are many broken elements to our energy system. Replacing expensive gas with cheap wind is not one of them.
Colville has a point inasmuch as the cost of construction especially in London is almost prohibitively expensive once you take off your Section 106 payments, Community Infrastructure Levy and Carbon Offset Tax etc, etc.
Yet the other side is we can’t simply build homes simply for the benefit of construction company shareholders. There has to be a sense in which the word “affordable” applies to all parties. In truth, the cost of construction is the bigger deterrent to building than notions of NIMBYism which are more about political points scoring.
The selling price of new build homes varies far more across the country than can be accounted for by differences in raw material costs and construction wages. Location, location, location.
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.
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
What is it that you think I'm selling?
I am sure the wind farm is lovely and shiny and big, as is your energy bill, which you acknowledged to me was still well above pre-crisis levels, despite all the freebies you were so delighted about.
Don't get me wrong, it is a huge success - for those who own windfarms.
Energy bills are high because they are set by gas prices most of the time. When gas drops out of the system and we only use wind, then energy prices collapse like a brick.
Because wind is cheap, gas is not.
There are many broken elements to our energy system. Replacing expensive gas with cheap wind is not one of them.
This isn't quite right actually.
We buy wind power at a fixed price based on our contracts with the power companies. Sometimes, when demand is high and gas is expensive, this saves us lots of money (particularly when Putin invaded Ukraine). At other times, when demand is low and spot price of electricity is cheap, it costs us lots of money. Indeed, in certain circumstances when we are generating too much electricity, we continue to pay wind farms under the contracts even when the turbines are effectively switched off. Overall, it roughly equates to 3% higher costs on average compared with simply taking the spot price.
There are some very strong arguments for this set up. We are risk averse; we like having a set price for electricity. National security; our energy costs are not influenced by Putin's influence on spot price, and domestic electricity generation is much more secure than importing LNG. Uncertainty; wind was a novel technology and we needed to give a guarantee to generators to mitigate their risk. Subsidy; we want to invest in new technologies that are great for the UK even if they not profitable for private companies.
There are major downsides. Because the price is fixed, there is no incentive for us to match demand with supply. We cannot reflect periods when we have bountiful energy in the prices that customers pay, nor build up industry where transmission costs are low. This is something that we need to urgently resolve IMO - some sort of hybrid system that guarantees a proportion of generation at a fixed price and anything above that a lower price - but that only works if we get much more people onto 30-minute tariffs.
Of little consequence, but I've just seen what the second tier of English Rugby has been renamed to. It was bad enough that rugby has followed the ridiculous precedent set by football that the top tier is 'Premiership', second tier is 'chqampionship', third tier is league one, etc. That was stupid, but at least had a smidgin of dignity. But now, the second tier has been renamed "Champ Rugby". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_Rugby
This can only come from the sort of marketing executive who thinks the secret to success is to annoy as many people as possible (see also: Brecon Beacons National Park).
What is the problem with the name of this national park (Parc Cenedlaethol Bannau Brycheiniog)?
Of little consequence, but I've just seen what the second tier of English Rugby has been renamed to. It was bad enough that rugby has followed the ridiculous precedent set by football that the top tier is 'Premiership', second tier is 'chqampionship', third tier is league one, etc. That was stupid, but at least had a smidgin of dignity. But now, the second tier has been renamed "Champ Rugby". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_Rugby
This can only come from the sort of marketing executive who thinks the secret to success is to annoy as many people as possible (see also: Brecon Beacons National Park).
What is the problem with the name of this national park (Parc Cenedlaethol Bannau Brycheiniog)?
Wales is reinstated the original Welsh names for several places and I see absolutely no problem with this
Mind you I live in Wales and my maternal grandparents were Welsh
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.
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
What is it that you think I'm selling?
I am sure the wind farm is lovely and shiny and big, as is your energy bill, which you acknowledged to me was still well above pre-crisis levels, despite all the freebies you were so delighted about.
Don't get me wrong, it is a huge success - for those who own windfarms.
Energy bills are high because they are set by gas prices most of the time. When gas drops out of the system and we only use wind, then energy prices collapse like a brick.
Because wind is cheap, gas is not.
There are many broken elements to our energy system. Replacing expensive gas with cheap wind is not one of them.
Pure bollocks.
Oh how nice. For dinner? Don't forget to blanch them first, and remove the membrane.
Off thread. How can anyone place a genuine bet on any football game apart from on the top 6 or so. All the others teams are being screwed by appaling refereeing and VAR decisions as evidenced at Chelsea.v Fulham yesterday. Even the pundits were shaking their heads.
Off thread. How can anyone place a genuine bet on any football game apart from on the top 6 or so. All the others teams are being screwed by appaling refereeing and VAR decisions as evidenced at Chelsea.v Fulham yesterday. Even the pundits were shaking their heads.
Just bet against the favourite, surely. If the games are becoming totally randomised ...
Off thread. How can anyone place a genuine bet on any football game apart from on the top 6 or so. All the others teams are being screwed by appaling refereeing and VAR decisions as evidenced at Chelsea.v Fulham yesterday. Even the pundits were shaking their heads.
Just bet against the favourite, surely. If the games are becoming totally randomised ...
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.
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
What is it that you think I'm selling?
I am sure the wind farm is lovely and shiny and big, as is your energy bill, which you acknowledged to me was still well above pre-crisis levels, despite all the freebies you were so delighted about.
Don't get me wrong, it is a huge success - for those who own windfarms.
Energy bills are high because they are set by gas prices most of the time. When gas drops out of the system and we only use wind, then energy prices collapse like a brick.
Because wind is cheap, gas is not.
There are many broken elements to our energy system. Replacing expensive gas with cheap wind is not one of them.
This isn't quite right actually.
We buy wind power at a fixed price based on our contracts with the power companies. Sometimes, when demand is high and gas is expensive, this saves us lots of money (particularly when Putin invaded Ukraine). At other times, when demand is low and spot price of electricity is cheap, it costs us lots of money. Indeed, in certain circumstances when we are generating too much electricity, we continue to pay wind farms under the contracts even when the turbines are effectively switched off. Overall, it roughly equates to 3% higher costs on average compared with simply taking the spot price.
There are some very strong arguments for this set up. We are risk averse; we like having a set price for electricity. National security; our energy costs are not influenced by Putin's influence on spot price, and domestic electricity generation is much more secure than importing LNG. Uncertainty; wind was a novel technology and we needed to give a guarantee to generators to mitigate their risk. Subsidy; we want to invest in new technologies that are great for the UK even if they not profitable for private companies.
There are major downsides. Because the price is fixed, there is no incentive for us to match demand with supply. We cannot reflect periods when we have bountiful energy in the prices that customers pay, nor build up industry where transmission costs are low. This is something that we need to urgently resolve IMO - some sort of hybrid system that guarantees a proportion of generation at a fixed price and anything above that a lower price - but that only works if we get much more people onto 30-minute tariffs.
We can soak up surplus leccy if we have flexibly operating Direct Air Capture and Electrolytic Hydrogen plants.
Off thread. How can anyone place a genuine bet on any football game apart from on the top 6 or so. All the others teams are being screwed by appaling refereeing and VAR decisions as evidenced at Chelsea.v Fulham yesterday. Even the pundits were shaking their heads.
Just bet against the favourite, surely. If the games are becoming totally randomised ...
I think you mean bet FOR the top 6
No, I meant in the lower games. Because from what you say people's bets on the favourites etc are being rendered useless. But bets on the converse odds on the other party should do better than otherwise.
Mind, the question is whether an increased risk of draws occurs in that situation. But I'm too full of black pudding and egg roll and beer to think it out.
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.
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
What is it that you think I'm selling?
I am sure the wind farm is lovely and shiny and big, as is your energy bill, which you acknowledged to me was still well above pre-crisis levels, despite all the freebies you were so delighted about.
Don't get me wrong, it is a huge success - for those who own windfarms.
Energy bills are high because they are set by gas prices most of the time. When gas drops out of the system and we only use wind, then energy prices collapse like a brick.
Because wind is cheap, gas is not.
There are many broken elements to our energy system. Replacing expensive gas with cheap wind is not one of them.
This isn't quite right actually.
We buy wind power at a fixed price based on our contracts with the power companies. Sometimes, when demand is high and gas is expensive, this saves us lots of money (particularly when Putin invaded Ukraine). At other times, when demand is low and spot price of electricity is cheap, it costs us lots of money. Indeed, in certain circumstances when we are generating too much electricity, we continue to pay wind farms under the contracts even when the turbines are effectively switched off. Overall, it roughly equates to 3% higher costs on average compared with simply taking the spot price.
There are some very strong arguments for this set up. We are risk averse; we like having a set price for electricity. National security; our energy costs are not influenced by Putin's influence on spot price, and domestic electricity generation is much more secure than importing LNG. Uncertainty; wind was a novel technology and we needed to give a guarantee to generators to mitigate their risk. Subsidy; we want to invest in new technologies that are great for the UK even if they not profitable for private companies.
There are major downsides. Because the price is fixed, there is no incentive for us to match demand with supply. We cannot reflect periods when we have bountiful energy in the prices that customers pay, nor build up industry where transmission costs are low. This is something that we need to urgently resolve IMO - some sort of hybrid system that guarantees a proportion of generation at a fixed price and anything above that a lower price - but that only works if we get much more people onto 30-minute tariffs.
We can soak up surplus leccy if we have flexibly operating Direct Air Capture and Electrolytic Hydrogen plants.
Plus smart charging of EVs.
Once there is enough surplus electricity enough of the time, there are all sorts of businesses that are likely to exploit the opportunity. Shipping containers full of batteries are just the start.
It's strange to think that anyone would find this less than ace.
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.
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
What is it that you think I'm selling?
I am sure the wind farm is lovely and shiny and big, as is your energy bill, which you acknowledged to me was still well above pre-crisis levels, despite all the freebies you were so delighted about.
Don't get me wrong, it is a huge success - for those who own windfarms.
Energy bills are high because they are set by gas prices most of the time. When gas drops out of the system and we only use wind, then energy prices collapse like a brick.
Because wind is cheap, gas is not.
There are many broken elements to our energy system. Replacing expensive gas with cheap wind is not one of them.
This isn't quite right actually.
We buy wind power at a fixed price based on our contracts with the power companies. Sometimes, when demand is high and gas is expensive, this saves us lots of money (particularly when Putin invaded Ukraine). At other times, when demand is low and spot price of electricity is cheap, it costs us lots of money. Indeed, in certain circumstances when we are generating too much electricity, we continue to pay wind farms under the contracts even when the turbines are effectively switched off. Overall, it roughly equates to 3% higher costs on average compared with simply taking the spot price.
There are some very strong arguments for this set up. We are risk averse; we like having a set price for electricity. National security; our energy costs are not influenced by Putin's influence on spot price, and domestic electricity generation is much more secure than importing LNG. Uncertainty; wind was a novel technology and we needed to give a guarantee to generators to mitigate their risk. Subsidy; we want to invest in new technologies that are great for the UK even if they not profitable for private companies.
There are major downsides. Because the price is fixed, there is no incentive for us to match demand with supply. We cannot reflect periods when we have bountiful energy in the prices that customers pay, nor build up industry where transmission costs are low. This is something that we need to urgently resolve IMO - some sort of hybrid system that guarantees a proportion of generation at a fixed price and anything above that a lower price - but that only works if we get much more people onto 30-minute tariffs.
We can soak up surplus leccy if we have flexibly operating Direct Air Capture and Electrolytic Hydrogen plants.
Plus smart charging of EVs.
Electrolysis is very inefficient for creating hydrogen - some fundamental physical limits.
Some catalytic approaches are far more efficient.
There was an interesting company in the US looking at direct methane, using DAC and solar. One interesting feature was not using battery storage or sophisticated electronics - just the raw power input from the cells, and accepting the interruptions in operations. The idea was to reduce cost (especially maintenance).
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.
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
What is it that you think I'm selling?
I am sure the wind farm is lovely and shiny and big, as is your energy bill, which you acknowledged to me was still well above pre-crisis levels, despite all the freebies you were so delighted about.
Don't get me wrong, it is a huge success - for those who own windfarms.
Energy bills are high because they are set by gas prices most of the time. When gas drops out of the system and we only use wind, then energy prices collapse like a brick.
Because wind is cheap, gas is not.
There are many broken elements to our energy system. Replacing expensive gas with cheap wind is not one of them.
This isn't quite right actually.
We buy wind power at a fixed price based on our contracts with the power companies. Sometimes, when demand is high and gas is expensive, this saves us lots of money (particularly when Putin invaded Ukraine). At other times, when demand is low and spot price of electricity is cheap, it costs us lots of money. Indeed, in certain circumstances when we are generating too much electricity, we continue to pay wind farms under the contracts even when the turbines are effectively switched off. Overall, it roughly equates to 3% higher costs on average compared with simply taking the spot price.
There are some very strong arguments for this set up. We are risk averse; we like having a set price for electricity. National security; our energy costs are not influenced by Putin's influence on spot price, and domestic electricity generation is much more secure than importing LNG. Uncertainty; wind was a novel technology and we needed to give a guarantee to generators to mitigate their risk. Subsidy; we want to invest in new technologies that are great for the UK even if they not profitable for private companies.
There are major downsides. Because the price is fixed, there is no incentive for us to match demand with supply. We cannot reflect periods when we have bountiful energy in the prices that customers pay, nor build up industry where transmission costs are low. This is something that we need to urgently resolve IMO - some sort of hybrid system that guarantees a proportion of generation at a fixed price and anything above that a lower price - but that only works if we get much more people onto 30-minute tariffs.
We can soak up surplus leccy if we have flexibly operating Direct Air Capture and Electrolytic Hydrogen plants.
Plus smart charging of EVs.
Yep. All the elements are there for a highly efficient system. The UK is in a unique position because so many of us live in houses, not flats, which means installing on-drive charging is much cheaper, and we have enormous amounts of wind.
It reminds me of Glasgow in the Industrial Revolution. Coal, iron and a deep water port all in close proximity. A few railways and canals later and suddenly you have the greatest economic centre anywhere in the world.
Not clear how much of the work will take place in Norway (lots of the Australian and Canadian work is in their respective countries.)
Which companies in the UK benefit ? Babcock, BAE ?
Depends, depends. BAE build them in the UK with stuff from Babcock.
I think the main constraining factor is shipyard space - AFAIK Babcock/BAE are going to be pretty busy over the next 15 years in Scotland just for the RN orders. I'll check instagram and judge it from the number of pints being consumed this evening.
"The government said the deal would support 4,000 UK jobs "well into the 2030s", including more than 2,000 at BAE Systems' Glasgow shipyards where the frigates will be built.
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said the agreement would "drive growth and protect national security for working people"."
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.
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
What is it that you think I'm selling?
I am sure the wind farm is lovely and shiny and big, as is your energy bill, which you acknowledged to me was still well above pre-crisis levels, despite all the freebies you were so delighted about.
Don't get me wrong, it is a huge success - for those who own windfarms.
Energy bills are high because they are set by gas prices most of the time. When gas drops out of the system and we only use wind, then energy prices collapse like a brick.
Because wind is cheap, gas is not.
There are many broken elements to our energy system. Replacing expensive gas with cheap wind is not one of them.
This isn't quite right actually.
We buy wind power at a fixed price based on our contracts with the power companies. Sometimes, when demand is high and gas is expensive, this saves us lots of money (particularly when Putin invaded Ukraine). At other times, when demand is low and spot price of electricity is cheap, it costs us lots of money. Indeed, in certain circumstances when we are generating too much electricity, we continue to pay wind farms under the contracts even when the turbines are effectively switched off. Overall, it roughly equates to 3% higher costs on average compared with simply taking the spot price.
There are some very strong arguments for this set up. We are risk averse; we like having a set price for electricity. National security; our energy costs are not influenced by Putin's influence on spot price, and domestic electricity generation is much more secure than importing LNG. Uncertainty; wind was a novel technology and we needed to give a guarantee to generators to mitigate their risk. Subsidy; we want to invest in new technologies that are great for the UK even if they not profitable for private companies.
There are major downsides. Because the price is fixed, there is no incentive for us to match demand with supply. We cannot reflect periods when we have bountiful energy in the prices that customers pay, nor build up industry where transmission costs are low. This is something that we need to urgently resolve IMO - some sort of hybrid system that guarantees a proportion of generation at a fixed price and anything above that a lower price - but that only works if we get much more people onto 30-minute tariffs.
We can soak up surplus leccy if we have flexibly operating Direct Air Capture and Electrolytic Hydrogen plants.
Plus smart charging of EVs.
Once there is enough surplus electricity enough of the time, there are all sorts of businesses that are likely to exploit the opportunity. Shipping containers full of batteries are just the start.
It's strange to think that anyone would find this less than ace.
The idea that energy saving is the way to go, has got baked into lots of calculations. I recall seeing one calculation that reducing water consumption by X would reduce CO2 emissions by a vast amount. The assumption, it turned out, was that the electrical power required would come from, among other things, 40% coal…..
"The government said the deal would support 4,000 UK jobs "well into the 2030s", including more than 2,000 at BAE Systems' Glasgow shipyards where the frigates will be built.
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said the agreement would "drive growth and protect national security for working people"."
What about national security for non-working people?
Not clear how much of the work will take place in Norway (lots of the Australian and Canadian work is in their respective countries.)
That's excellent news mainly for Scotland and perhaps Derby. Total value is something north of £6bn (4 hulls), but could be more, and further programmes after that.
It's very good for interoperability etc on the Northern flank.
But it may involve one of the current 'Royal Navy' Type 26s being diverted to Norway to get them started more quickly.
"The government said the deal would support 4,000 UK jobs "well into the 2030s", including more than 2,000 at BAE Systems' Glasgow shipyards where the frigates will be built.
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said the agreement would "drive growth and protect national security for working people"."
What about national security for non-working people?
The KeepOutZones for the non-existent national missile defense system will be defined by those paying NI
So Mrs Miggins at No.33 will be protected from nuclear strikes, but Dodgy Dave at No.34 who doesn’t work won’t be.
"The government said the deal would support 4,000 UK jobs "well into the 2030s", including more than 2,000 at BAE Systems' Glasgow shipyards where the frigates will be built.
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said the agreement would "drive growth and protect national security for working people"."
What about national security for non-working people?
The KeepOutZones for the non-existent national missile defense system will be defined by those paying NI
So Mrs Miggins at No.33 will be protected from nuclear strikes, but Dodgy Dave at No.34 who doesn’t work won’t be.
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.
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
What is it that you think I'm selling?
I am sure the wind farm is lovely and shiny and big, as is your energy bill, which you acknowledged to me was still well above pre-crisis levels, despite all the freebies you were so delighted about.
Don't get me wrong, it is a huge success - for those who own windfarms.
Energy bills are high because they are set by gas prices most of the time. When gas drops out of the system and we only use wind, then energy prices collapse like a brick.
Because wind is cheap, gas is not.
There are many broken elements to our energy system. Replacing expensive gas with cheap wind is not one of them.
This isn't quite right actually.
We buy wind power at a fixed price based on our contracts with the power companies. Sometimes, when demand is high and gas is expensive, this saves us lots of money (particularly when Putin invaded Ukraine). At other times, when demand is low and spot price of electricity is cheap, it costs us lots of money. Indeed, in certain circumstances when we are generating too much electricity, we continue to pay wind farms under the contracts even when the turbines are effectively switched off. Overall, it roughly equates to 3% higher costs on average compared with simply taking the spot price.
There are some very strong arguments for this set up. We are risk averse; we like having a set price for electricity. National security; our energy costs are not influenced by Putin's influence on spot price, and domestic electricity generation is much more secure than importing LNG. Uncertainty; wind was a novel technology and we needed to give a guarantee to generators to mitigate their risk. Subsidy; we want to invest in new technologies that are great for the UK even if they not profitable for private companies.
There are major downsides. Because the price is fixed, there is no incentive for us to match demand with supply. We cannot reflect periods when we have bountiful energy in the prices that customers pay, nor build up industry where transmission costs are low. This is something that we need to urgently resolve IMO - some sort of hybrid system that guarantees a proportion of generation at a fixed price and anything above that a lower price - but that only works if we get much more people onto 30-minute tariffs.
We can soak up surplus leccy if we have flexibly operating Direct Air Capture and Electrolytic Hydrogen plants.
Plus smart charging of EVs.
Electrolysis is very inefficient for creating hydrogen - some fundamental physical limits.
Some catalytic approaches are far more efficient.
There was an interesting company in the US looking at direct methane, using DAC and solar. One interesting feature was not using battery storage or sophisticated electronics - just the raw power input from the cells, and accepting the interruptions in operations. The idea was to reduce cost (especially maintenance).
Using surplus wind to produce hydrogen island lot more efficient than curtailing generation.
There are lots of technology options that need to be developed for load shifting, energy storage and decarbonisation. Interesting times.
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.
Many people would argue that failing to control the borders is a prime example of "abandoning all restraint".
It's interesting how the left can't see this.
Exactly how does one 'control the borders'? The problem, as I see it is one of technology. It's easy, and apparently quite cheap, to obtain inflatable boats and find desperate people to buy seats in them. It was much harder to cross the Channel 'uncontrolled' when the only boats available were wooden and had to be built by hand. When the 'desperate' people had to buy, or be bought, tickets on one or other of the ferries we didn't have the same problem, although I seem to recall tales of riots in the East End of London back in the 1930's.
I'm not denying that there are people crossing who we would regard as unwanted rogues but there are many to whom we promised 'care and support' but made it impossible to get here.
It would be interesting, and perhaps informative, to have journalists talk to people who actually have travelled here by rubber boats, instead of making assumptions.
We've controlled the borders for almost a thousand years. The idea we can't do so now is ridiculous.
Not clear how much of the work will take place in Norway (lots of the Australian and Canadian work is in their respective countries.)
It looks like the hulls will be built in Glasgow, but some of the equipment for the Norwegian ships may come from Norway. Excellent news overall, secures a lot of jobs and makes it ever more clear if you're looking to buy world class warships the UK is a good choice.
I suspect one of the T26s currently under construction for the RN will be re-allocated to Norway so they can use it for training.
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.
Many people would argue that failing to control the borders is a prime example of "abandoning all restraint".
It's interesting how the left can't see this.
Exactly how does one 'control the borders'? The problem, as I see it is one of technology. It's easy, and apparently quite cheap, to obtain inflatable boats and find desperate people to buy seats in them. It was much harder to cross the Channel 'uncontrolled' when the only boats available were wooden and had to be built by hand. When the 'desperate' people had to buy, or be bought, tickets on one or other of the ferries we didn't have the same problem, although I seem to recall tales of riots in the East End of London back in the 1930's.
I'm not denying that there are people crossing who we would regard as unwanted rogues but there are many to whom we promised 'care and support' but made it impossible to get here.
It would be interesting, and perhaps informative, to have journalists talk to people who actually have travelled here by rubber boats, instead of making assumptions.
We've controlled the borders for almost a thousand years. The idea we can't do so now is ridiculous.
Was a bit easier in the past to be fair, you could blow the boats up or massacre them on the beach. Can’t do that now weirdly.
Colville has a point inasmuch as the cost of construction especially in London is almost prohibitively expensive once you take off your Section 106 payments, Community Infrastructure Levy and Carbon Offset Tax etc, etc.
Yet the other side is we can’t simply build homes simply for the benefit of construction company shareholders. There has to be a sense in which the word “affordable” applies to all parties. In truth, the cost of construction is the bigger deterrent to building than notions of NIMBYism which are more about political points scoring.
The selling price of new build homes varies far more across the country than can be accounted for by differences in raw material costs and construction wages. Location, location, location.
I did say London and it was simply to the capital I was referring.
We've recently discussed Dawn Butler's anti-gambling walk-and-talk action. She is certainly in the papers a lot recently and a prospective mayoral run may explain why.
We've recently discussed Dawn Butler's anti-gambling walk-and-talk action. She is certainly in the papers a lot recently and a prospective mayoral run may explain why.
Most stolen phones are striped for parts because of increasing security measures from manufacturers…
We've recently discussed Dawn Butler's anti-gambling walk-and-talk action. She is certainly in the papers a lot recently and a prospective mayoral run may explain why.
Most stolen phones are striped for parts because of increasing security measures from manufacturers…
The only sane option is to add a self-destruct option. If I can’t have my phone, no one can.
We've recently discussed Dawn Butler's anti-gambling walk-and-talk action. She is certainly in the papers a lot recently and a prospective mayoral run may explain why.
Most stolen phones are striped for parts because of increasing security measures from manufacturers…
The only sane option is to add a self-destruct option. If I can’t have my phone, no one can.
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.
Many people would argue that failing to control the borders is a prime example of "abandoning all restraint".
It's interesting how the left can't see this.
Exactly how does one 'control the borders'? The problem, as I see it is one of technology. It's easy, and apparently quite cheap, to obtain inflatable boats and find desperate people to buy seats in them. It was much harder to cross the Channel 'uncontrolled' when the only boats available were wooden and had to be built by hand. When the 'desperate' people had to buy, or be bought, tickets on one or other of the ferries we didn't have the same problem, although I seem to recall tales of riots in the East End of London back in the 1930's.
I'm not denying that there are people crossing who we would regard as unwanted rogues but there are many to whom we promised 'care and support' but made it impossible to get here.
It would be interesting, and perhaps informative, to have journalists talk to people who actually have travelled here by rubber boats, instead of making assumptions.
We've controlled the borders for almost a thousand years. The idea we can't do so now is ridiculous.
I really LOL at that. we didn't 'control' our borders. Our borders in the last thousand years were incredibly porous - even if you were smuggling goods. It's just that the demand to come over here was not as great, the ability to travel large distances not as easy, and the knowledge of greener pastures on the other side of the fence not as widespread.
The idea that our borders were somehow under 'control' is laughable. Heck, the last French invasion had to be seen off by Jemima Nicholas, not an army.
We've recently discussed Dawn Butler's anti-gambling walk-and-talk action. She is certainly in the papers a lot recently and a prospective mayoral run may explain why.
Most stolen phones are striped for parts because of increasing security measures from manufacturers…
The only sane option is to add a self-destruct option. If I can’t have my phone, no one can.
Surprising to see Sky News publish an article like this.
"Political leanings of two judges involved in Epping migrant hotel case - and who they sided with Lord Justice Bean is an ex-treasurer of the Society of Labour Lawyers and used to chair the Fabian Society, which is affiliated to Labour. Sir Stephen Eyre, the High Court judge who ruled in favour of Epping Forest District Council earlier this month, was a Tory parliamentary candidate.
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.
Many people would argue that failing to control the borders is a prime example of "abandoning all restraint".
It's interesting how the left can't see this.
Exactly how does one 'control the borders'? The problem, as I see it is one of technology. It's easy, and apparently quite cheap, to obtain inflatable boats and find desperate people to buy seats in them. It was much harder to cross the Channel 'uncontrolled' when the only boats available were wooden and had to be built by hand. When the 'desperate' people had to buy, or be bought, tickets on one or other of the ferries we didn't have the same problem, although I seem to recall tales of riots in the East End of London back in the 1930's.
I'm not denying that there are people crossing who we would regard as unwanted rogues but there are many to whom we promised 'care and support' but made it impossible to get here.
It would be interesting, and perhaps informative, to have journalists talk to people who actually have travelled here by rubber boats, instead of making assumptions.
We've controlled the borders for almost a thousand years. The idea we can't do so now is ridiculous.
I really LOL at that. we didn't 'control' our borders. Our borders in the last thousand years were incredibly porous - even if you were smuggling goods. It's just that the demand to come over here was not as great, the ability to travel large distances not as easy, and the knowledge of greener pastures on the other side of the fence not as widespread.
The idea that our borders were somehow under 'control' is laughable. Heck, the last French invasion had to be seen off by Jemima Nicholas, not an army.
We also had open borders until the 1905 Aliens Act. Before that anyone could come, hence our 19th Century German, Jewish, Chinese, Lascar, Yemeni etc communities.
No need for small boats in those days, just buy a ticket or work a passage on any ship.
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.
Many people would argue that failing to control the borders is a prime example of "abandoning all restraint".
It's interesting how the left can't see this.
Exactly how does one 'control the borders'? The problem, as I see it is one of technology. It's easy, and apparently quite cheap, to obtain inflatable boats and find desperate people to buy seats in them. It was much harder to cross the Channel 'uncontrolled' when the only boats available were wooden and had to be built by hand. When the 'desperate' people had to buy, or be bought, tickets on one or other of the ferries we didn't have the same problem, although I seem to recall tales of riots in the East End of London back in the 1930's.
I'm not denying that there are people crossing who we would regard as unwanted rogues but there are many to whom we promised 'care and support' but made it impossible to get here.
It would be interesting, and perhaps informative, to have journalists talk to people who actually have travelled here by rubber boats, instead of making assumptions.
We've controlled the borders for almost a thousand years. The idea we can't do so now is ridiculous.
I really LOL at that. we didn't 'control' our borders. Our borders in the last thousand years were incredibly porous - even if you were smuggling goods. It's just that the demand to come over here was not as great, the ability to travel large distances not as easy, and the knowledge of greener pastures on the other side of the fence not as widespread.
The idea that our borders were somehow under 'control' is laughable. Heck, the last French invasion had to be seen off by Jemima Nicholas, not an army.
We also had open borders until the 1905 Aliens Act. Before that anyone could come, hence our 19th Century German, Jewish, Chinese, Lascar, Yemeni etc communities.
No need for small boats in those days, just buy a ticket or work a passage on any ship.
Churchill, as Home Sec., got jeered in the aftermath on the Sydney Street siege. He was seen by the locals as soft of immigration - the men involved in the siege were political radicals from Imperial Russia. Latvians, IIRC.
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.
Many people would argue that failing to control the borders is a prime example of "abandoning all restraint".
It's interesting how the left can't see this.
Exactly how does one 'control the borders'? The problem, as I see it is one of technology. It's easy, and apparently quite cheap, to obtain inflatable boats and find desperate people to buy seats in them. It was much harder to cross the Channel 'uncontrolled' when the only boats available were wooden and had to be built by hand. When the 'desperate' people had to buy, or be bought, tickets on one or other of the ferries we didn't have the same problem, although I seem to recall tales of riots in the East End of London back in the 1930's.
I'm not denying that there are people crossing who we would regard as unwanted rogues but there are many to whom we promised 'care and support' but made it impossible to get here.
It would be interesting, and perhaps informative, to have journalists talk to people who actually have travelled here by rubber boats, instead of making assumptions.
We've controlled the borders for almost a thousand years. The idea we can't do so now is ridiculous.
I really LOL at that. we didn't 'control' our borders. Our borders in the last thousand years were incredibly porous - even if you were smuggling goods. It's just that the demand to come over here was not as great, the ability to travel large distances not as easy, and the knowledge of greener pastures on the other side of the fence not as widespread.
The idea that our borders were somehow under 'control' is laughable. Heck, the last French invasion had to be seen off by Jemima Nicholas, not an army.
There's nothing funny about not controlling the borders.
Why aren’t there more lakes? Everybody likes lakes. They’re fun and pretty and you “have a day by the lake”
Look at the Lake District. Massively popular. Or the Italian lakes. Even more popular. Crazy busy
If we had more lakes then the lakes we have now wouldn’t be so crowded
As any fule do kno there are only two lakes in the Lake District, the rest are meres or waters.
Well yes. Although I think you would have to be a special sort of peculiar to argue that Windermere isn't a lake because it doesn't have the word 'lake' in its name. I prefer to phrase it that there are only two lakes with the word 'lake' in their name. Except in my version, it's only one: Basenthwaite Lake. What's the other?
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.
Many people would argue that failing to control the borders is a prime example of "abandoning all restraint".
It's interesting how the left can't see this.
Exactly how does one 'control the borders'? The problem, as I see it is one of technology. It's easy, and apparently quite cheap, to obtain inflatable boats and find desperate people to buy seats in them. It was much harder to cross the Channel 'uncontrolled' when the only boats available were wooden and had to be built by hand. When the 'desperate' people had to buy, or be bought, tickets on one or other of the ferries we didn't have the same problem, although I seem to recall tales of riots in the East End of London back in the 1930's.
I'm not denying that there are people crossing who we would regard as unwanted rogues but there are many to whom we promised 'care and support' but made it impossible to get here.
It would be interesting, and perhaps informative, to have journalists talk to people who actually have travelled here by rubber boats, instead of making assumptions.
We've controlled the borders for almost a thousand years. The idea we can't do so now is ridiculous.
I really LOL at that. we didn't 'control' our borders. Our borders in the last thousand years were incredibly porous - even if you were smuggling goods. It's just that the demand to come over here was not as great, the ability to travel large distances not as easy, and the knowledge of greener pastures on the other side of the fence not as widespread.
The idea that our borders were somehow under 'control' is laughable. Heck, the last French invasion had to be seen off by Jemima Nicholas, not an army.
There's nothing funny about not controlling the borders.
Okay, can you define what you mean by 'controlling the borders', and how they have been controlled for almost a thousand years before now?
One for Bouley and his millionaire fetish. There should be more concern about skilled Europeans leaving in comparison to these millionaires. The rich will invest in a country with skilled people and opportunities. They don’t need to live here and frankly doffing the cap to the is so last century.
We need skills more than money as money can always be created at a click of a keyboard. Skill not so easy
Surprising to see Sky News publish an article like this.
"Political leanings of two judges involved in Epping migrant hotel case - and who they sided with Lord Justice Bean is an ex-treasurer of the Society of Labour Lawyers and used to chair the Fabian Society, which is affiliated to Labour. Sir Stephen Eyre, the High Court judge who ruled in favour of Epping Forest District Council earlier this month, was a Tory parliamentary candidate.
Why aren’t there more lakes? Everybody likes lakes. They’re fun and pretty and you “have a day by the lake”
Look at the Lake District. Massively popular. Or the Italian lakes. Even more popular. Crazy busy
If we had more lakes then the lakes we have now wouldn’t be so crowded
There are several possible approaches to this. The best would be to invade Finland and attach it to the UK; second best is to have more man made waters such as Rutland Water and Kielder.
Worst is to better publicise the loch at the bottom of the garden I stay most years in Scotland, which is about the size of the Caspian and is utterly deserted. Other equally empty lochs are available.
One for Bouley and his millionaire fetish. There should be more concern about skilled Europeans leaving in comparison to these millionaires. The rich will invest in a country with skilled people and opportunities. They don’t need to live here and frankly doffing the cap to the is so last century.
We need skills more than money as money can always be created at a click of a keyboard. Skill not so easy
One doesn’t preclude the other. We should want both to stay but for both to stay you want it to be attractive and make people see that if they work hard, set up businesses the country wants them and supports them rather than punish them.
Surprising to see Sky News publish an article like this.
"Political leanings of two judges involved in Epping migrant hotel case - and who they sided with Lord Justice Bean is an ex-treasurer of the Society of Labour Lawyers and used to chair the Fabian Society, which is affiliated to Labour. Sir Stephen Eyre, the High Court judge who ruled in favour of Epping Forest District Council earlier this month, was a Tory parliamentary candidate.
One for Bouley and his millionaire fetish. There should be more concern about skilled Europeans leaving in comparison to these millionaires. The rich will invest in a country with skilled people and opportunities. They don’t need to live here and frankly doffing the cap to the is so last century.
We need skills more than money as money can always be created at a click of a keyboard. Skill not so easy
One for Bouley and his millionaire fetish. There should be more concern about skilled Europeans leaving in comparison to these millionaires. The rich will invest in a country with skilled people and opportunities. They don’t need to live here and frankly doffing the cap to the is so last century.
We need skills more than money as money can always be created at a click of a keyboard. Skill not so easy
One for Bouley and his millionaire fetish. There should be more concern about skilled Europeans leaving in comparison to these millionaires. The rich will invest in a country with skilled people and opportunities. They don’t need to live here and frankly doffing the cap to the is so last century.
We need skills more than money as money can always be created at a click of a keyboard. Skill not so easy
I’m visualising a millionaire fetish.
‘Ooh, trickle down on me you big sexy Croesus!’
Seriously, nobody thought of "golden showers"? Nobody?
So burt Bacharach and Hal David got it completely wrong in their song “What the world needs now”
It should actually go like THIS
“What the world needs now is love, sweet love It's the only thing that there's just too little of What the world needs now is love, sweet love No not just for some, but for everyone
“Lord, we don't need another mountain There are mountains and hillsides enough to climb There are oceans and rivers enough to cross Enough to last 'til the end of time
What the world needs now is love, sweet love - BUT ALSO LAKES. WE NEED MORE LAKES”
That’s not only a much superior lyric in terms of rhythm and scansion, it also underlines the pro-lake message we need to send out
One for Bouley and his millionaire fetish. There should be more concern about skilled Europeans leaving in comparison to these millionaires. The rich will invest in a country with skilled people and opportunities. They don’t need to live here and frankly doffing the cap to the is so last century.
We need skills more than money as money can always be created at a click of a keyboard. Skill not so easy
Didn’t realise it was a binary choice. We can be concerned about both.
So burt Bacharach and Hal David got it completely wrong in their song “What the world needs now”
It should actually go like THIS
“What the world needs now is love, sweet love It's the only thing that there's just too little of What the world needs now is love, sweet love No not just for some, but for everyone
“Lord, we don't need another mountain There are mountains and hillsides enough to climb There are oceans and rivers enough to cross Enough to last 'til the end of time
What the world needs now is love, sweet love - BUT ALSO LAKES. WE NEED MORE LAKES”
That’s not only a much superior lyric in terms of rhythm and scansion, it also underlines the pro-lake message we need to send out
So burt Bacharach and Hal David got it completely wrong in their song “What the world needs now”
It should actually go like THIS
“What the world needs now is love, sweet love It's the only thing that there's just too little of What the world needs now is love, sweet love No not just for some, but for everyone
“Lord, we don't need another mountain There are mountains and hillsides enough to climb There are oceans and rivers enough to cross Enough to last 'til the end of time
What the world needs now is love, sweet love - BUT ALSO LAKES. WE NEED MORE LAKES”
That’s not only a much superior lyric in terms of rhythm and scansion, it also underlines the pro-lake message we need to send out
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/aug/31/richard-tice-church-archbishop-criticism-reform-immigration-policy?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Perhaps spending half his time in Dubai as a migrant has caused him to lose touch.
And a pretty accurate summary of Austria's charms vs Deutschland und Schweiz.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Trinity_Church,_Dubai
But now, the second tier has been renamed "Champ Rugby".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_Rugby
This can only come from the sort of marketing executive who thinks the secret to success is to annoy as many people as possible (see also: Brecon Beacons National Park).
I got married in one!
UAE is genuinely one of the most tolerant places in the world of different religious beliefs.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/boost-for-uk-growth-and-security-as-norway-selects-uk-warships-in-10-billion-partnership
The other, tennis played by monkeys.
(Apart from the mens/womens double-header thing. More should be made of that. Possibly somehow combining the two matches into one result. That's good, even if it was initially a COVID kludge.)
Crazy quotes from anonymous U.S. officials saying the Europeans are the ones standing in the way of a peace deal. Putin laid the groundwork for this kind of theory in Alaska and it appears to be taking hold of some in the White House.
https://x.com/DougKlain/status/1961833625814495284
"I'd have won me that Nobel Prize if it weren't for those pesky European kids..."
Which was a purely academic exercise - until all the massive Norwegian oil fields were found to lay in the bit we had conceded.
Norway has a massive wealth fund for the ages - as a result of one slap-up lunch.
Q: “Do you agree with your lawyers that the rights of asylum seekers are more important than the rights of local people in Epping Forest?
A: ”Yes. Of course we do.”
https://x.com/brexitblog_info/status/1962123560740110397?s=61
I have no qualms with building up, great. But building out is essential too, given our huge population growth.
You're right that not everyone wants a garden and anyone who doesn't should be able to choose a home without one, however anyone who does should be able to choose a home with one.
We should liberalise planning and let people choose what they want. If they want a flat without a garden, good for them. If they want a house without a garden, good for them. If they want a house with a garden, good for them.
Or would you deny people that choice?
We buy wind power at a fixed price based on our contracts with the power companies. Sometimes, when demand is high and gas is expensive, this saves us lots of money (particularly when Putin invaded Ukraine). At other times, when demand is low and spot price of electricity is cheap, it costs us lots of money. Indeed, in certain circumstances when we are generating too much electricity, we continue to pay wind farms under the contracts even when the turbines are effectively switched off. Overall, it roughly equates to 3% higher costs on average compared with simply taking the spot price.
There are some very strong arguments for this set up. We are risk averse; we like having a set price for electricity. National security; our energy costs are not influenced by Putin's influence on spot price, and domestic electricity generation is much more secure than importing LNG. Uncertainty; wind was a novel technology and we needed to give a guarantee to generators to mitigate their risk. Subsidy; we want to invest in new technologies that are great for the UK even if they not profitable for private companies.
There are major downsides. Because the price is fixed, there is no incentive for us to match demand with supply. We cannot reflect periods when we have bountiful energy in the prices that customers pay, nor build up industry where transmission costs are low. This is something that we need to urgently resolve IMO - some sort of hybrid system that guarantees a proportion of generation at a fixed price and anything above that a lower price - but that only works if we get much more people onto 30-minute tariffs.
https://x.com/narendramodi/status/1962085023034863976?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ
Mind you I live in Wales and my maternal grandparents were Welsh
All the others teams are being screwed by appaling refereeing and VAR decisions as evidenced at Chelsea.v Fulham yesterday. Even the pundits were shaking their heads.
Plus smart charging of EVs.
Mind, the question is whether an increased risk of draws occurs in that situation. But I'm too full of black pudding and egg roll and beer to think it out.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-type-26-frigate-wins-norwegian-frigate-competition/
Adding to Australian and Canadian orders.
Not clear how much of the work will take place in Norway (lots of the Australian and Canadian work is in their respective countries.)
Some details here in the Construction section.
It's strange to think that anyone would find this less than ace.
Some catalytic approaches are far more efficient.
There was an interesting company in the US looking at direct methane, using DAC and solar. One interesting feature was not using battery storage or sophisticated electronics - just the raw power input from the cells, and accepting the interruptions in operations. The idea was to reduce cost (especially maintenance).
It reminds me of Glasgow in the Industrial Revolution. Coal, iron and a deep water port all in close proximity. A few railways and canals later and suddenly you have the greatest economic centre anywhere in the world.
I think the main constraining factor is shipyard space - AFAIK Babcock/BAE are going to be pretty busy over the next 15 years in Scotland just for the RN orders. I'll check instagram and judge it from the number of pints being consumed this evening.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr5rgdpvn63o
"The government said the deal would support 4,000 UK jobs "well into the 2030s", including more than 2,000 at BAE Systems' Glasgow shipyards where the frigates will be built.
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said the agreement would "drive growth and protect national security for working people"."
CO2 emissions by a vast amount. The assumption, it turned out, was that the electrical power required would come from, among other things, 40% coal…..
It's very good for interoperability etc on the Northern flank.
But it may involve one of the current 'Royal Navy' Type 26s being diverted to Norway to get them started more quickly.
missile defense system will be defined by those paying NI
So Mrs Miggins at No.33 will be protected from nuclear strikes, but Dodgy Dave at No.34 who doesn’t work won’t be.
There are lots of technology options that need to be developed for load shifting, energy storage and decarbonisation. Interesting times.
I suspect one of the T26s currently under construction for the RN will be re-allocated to Norway so they can use it for training.
One day soon Europe should just say Nah, that’s it. We’re shut. You can’t come in
The entire world would bitch and moan but what could they do? Pay a lot more is what they could do
Charge them ten grand each a day
3 points after 3 games and below United even !!!!
Labour MP Dawn Butler is seeking an amendment that would require tech giants to block stolen phones
...
Ms Butler, who has recently announced she will stand for London mayor if Sadiq Khan stands down
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/stolen-phone-snatching-law-change-london-streets-b2811953.html
10/1 with Corals and Ladbrokes.
We've recently discussed Dawn Butler's anti-gambling walk-and-talk action. She is certainly in the papers a lot recently and a prospective mayoral run may explain why.
The idea that our borders were somehow under 'control' is laughable. Heck, the last French invasion had to be seen off by Jemima Nicholas, not an army.
Look at the Lake District. Massively popular. Or the Italian lakes. Even more popular. Crazy busy
If we had more lakes then the lakes we have now wouldn’t be so crowded
"Political leanings of two judges involved in Epping migrant hotel case - and who they sided with
Lord Justice Bean is an ex-treasurer of the Society of Labour Lawyers and used to chair the Fabian Society, which is affiliated to Labour. Sir Stephen Eyre, the High Court judge who ruled in favour of Epping Forest District Council earlier this month, was a Tory parliamentary candidate.
Jon Craig
Chief political correspondent"
https://news.sky.com/story/political-leanings-of-two-judges-involved-in-epping-migrant-hotel-case-and-who-they-sided-with-13420751
No need for small boats in those days, just buy a ticket or work a passage on any ship.
She's " fourth-ranking Republican in the Senate", whatever that means, there since 2015, military veteran, 55 years old.
I'm not sure what that implies - will there be more potentially?
CNN: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joni-ernst-wont-seek-reelection-to-senate-in-2026-sources-say/
Meidas Touch (anti-Trump):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fXmo2GsGYU
Except in my version, it's only one: Basenthwaite Lake. What's the other?
We need skills more than money as money can always be created at a click of a keyboard. Skill not so easy
Worst is to better publicise the loch at the bottom of the garden I stay most years in Scotland, which is about the size of the Caspian and is utterly deserted. Other equally empty lochs are available.
Of course many will try to discredit a verdict they didn’t like
‘Ooh, trickle down on me you big sexy Croesus!’
It should actually go like THIS
“What the world needs now is love, sweet love
It's the only thing that there's just too little of
What the world needs now is love, sweet love
No not just for some, but for everyone
“Lord, we don't need another mountain
There are mountains and hillsides enough to climb
There are oceans and rivers enough to cross
Enough to last 'til the end of time
What the world needs now is love, sweet love - BUT ALSO LAKES. WE NEED MORE LAKES”
That’s not only a much superior lyric in terms of rhythm and scansion, it also underlines the pro-lake message we need to send out