Skip to content

Getting squeezed like a Chippendale’s arse at a hen party – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,768
edited 5:33PM in General
Getting squeezed like a Chippendale’s arse at a hen party – politicalbetting.com

.@MichaelLangeNYC is always a must read bc he has a track record of accuracy. Michael has @ZohranKMamdani breaking 50% & winning by a comfortable margin https://t.co/dYnbhaUpVT

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,764
    had a nibble on Betfair
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,764
    @gtconway.bsky.social‬

    There is a distinct possibility that some people are too stupid to participate in a democracy

    https://bsky.app/profile/gtconway.bsky.social/post/3m4t2yq72bw2q
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,938
    edited 5:36PM
    I have to be honest getting endorsed by Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, and Elon Musk might not be sub-optimal for the Zohran Madami.

    I think there's a word missing there somewhere.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 68,683
    Who is the frenchman on the right?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,607
    ydoethur said:

    I have to be honest getting endorsed by Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, and Elon Musk might not be sub-optimal for the Zohran Madami.

    I think there's a word missing there somewhere.

    Nah, getting endorsed by that unholy trinity might boost support/turnout for him.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,938

    ydoethur said:

    I have to be honest getting endorsed by Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, and Elon Musk might not be sub-optimal for the Zohran Madami.

    I think there's a word missing there somewhere.

    Nah, getting endorsed by that unholy trinity might boost support/turnout for him.
    Yes, but unless I've missed something it's not Zohran Madami that they've endorsed.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,607
    edited 5:47PM

    Who is the frenchman on the right?

    Curtis Silwa, the Republican candidate.
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,945
    Well that’s not a thread header I was ever expecting here !!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,607
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I have to be honest getting endorsed by Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, and Elon Musk might not be sub-optimal for the Zohran Madami.

    I think there's a word missing there somewhere.

    Nah, getting endorsed by that unholy trinity might boost support/turnout for him.
    Yes, but unless I've missed something it's not Zohran Madami that they've endorsed.
    I've added Andrew Cuomo for clarity.

    It's my first day back at work in a fortnight, it's been hectic, I've not had my lunch, and I have to get to Anfield in rush hour.
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,945
    Scott_xP said:

    had a nibble on Betfair

    I’ve had a massive £1.30 on Cumo

    The main reason being after winning on Caerphilly the balance on my account was not divisible by 5. I’m quite attached to that criteria.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,840
    Poor old Elon, can't help the deliberate racism.
    You can at least find cheer in the knowledge that his dabbling with ketamine means his urethra is burning with a constant dribble of piss.

    Betfair seem to have pulled the market on Mamdani's vote percentage?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,607
    Taz said:

    Well that’s not a thread header I was ever expecting here !!

    Yes, it isn't my usual subtle/understated style.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,755

    Who is the frenchman on the right?

    He’s wearing hisGuardianAngels Beret. Not sure if they are still active but he was the founder.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,997
    edited 5:48PM

    Who is the frenchman on the right?

    Curtia Silwa, the Republican candidate.
    Curtis Silwa.

    One has to feel sorry for him to see the President and a lot of high profile Republicans push the failed Democrat scumbag former mayor opponent.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,358
    What did I miss with Leon? The last thing I saw him post was about how the chagos deal was stupid, events today show that had some prescience. What was he banned for?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 58,121
    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Tommy Ten Terms has been found innocent:

    On Tuesday, District Judge Sam Goozee found Robinson not guilty of failing to comply with the counter-terrorism powers during the incident on July 28 last year.

    Mr Goozee said: “I cannot put out of my mind that it was actually what you stood for and your political beliefs that acted for the principle reason for this stop.”

    He also said Pc Mitchell Thorogood’s decision to stop Robinson was based on a “protected characteristic”, adding: “I cannot convict you.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/04/tommy-robinson-not-guilty-terror-offence/

    I don't have a clue what the Judge means. "Protected characteristic" is the language of the Equality Act. What protected characteristic?

    There's a bit of a whiff of police cockup about this imo. If he had an illegal amount of cash on him for export undeclared, why was that not charged?

    Presumably the protected characteristic is political belief?

    Anyway, Robinson must be relieved. Now he can concentrate on the ongoing legal fight over whether he is hiding any money with his insolvency that he owes in libel damages, and his trial due next year on harassment charges.
    I don't see how political belief is a protected characteristic under terrorism law, and it seems quite reasonable to treat a career violent criminal, fraudster, bankrupt driving a Bentley with suspicion.

    GB News were saying he was selected on the basis of "political belief" not something else, which I can't remember.

    Personally I think the Judge is off his rocker.
    I'm surprised Cyclefree isn't all over this after the Supreme Court ruling on the primacy of birth certificates because presumably the "protected characteristic" is that Judge has determined he's a (you're banned Ed).

    The Judge is an idiot, if a convicted criminal driving a high value car that isn't theirs across the border isn't reasonable grounds for plod to make a stop then what is?
    Equality law overrides other laws. There is also previous rulings on the protection of political belief under the Equalities Act

    see https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2009/0219_09_0311.html
    • The belief must be genuinely held.
    • It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
    • It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
    • It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
    • It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
    The issue in his case was the use of ant-terrorism law to demand the Tommy Lots of Names unlock his phone.

    If the policeman had stopped Tommy Lots of names for being in possession of someone's else's expensive car or for the large amount of cash that was in his possession, that would have been different. Those matters are still being taken forward - especially the cash issue.

    What the court was ruling, here, was that the policeman had no right to demand Tommy Lots of Names should unlock his phone just because the policeman felt that Tommy Lots Of Names was a wrong 'un. And that Tommy Lots of Names committed no crime by not unlocking his phone on demand.
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,945
    For those who follow international cricket this is a sad end to an excellent career for one of the smaller test nations. It also confirms online rumours.

    https://x.com/werries_/status/1985706576297009662?s=61
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,870
    I have to be honest getting endorsed by Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, and Elon Musk might not be sub-optimal for the Zohran Madami.

    The Madami, or whatever Melon Usk calls him ?
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,755
    Sandpit said:

    Who is the frenchman on the right?

    Curtia Silwa, the Republican candidate.
    Curtis Silwa.
    BTW re your post on Alison Limerick, she might make money from boosted demand for appearances but the chap making the money is the Swedish guy who wrote and produced it and hired to to sing it. He will be laughing.
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,945

    Taz said:

    Well that’s not a thread header I was ever expecting here !!

    Yes, it isn't my usual subtle/understated style.
    Yes, you’re known as much for your subtlety as your legendary modesty !
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 58,121
    moonshine said:

    What did I miss with Leon? The last thing I saw him post was about how the chagos deal was stupid, events today show that had some prescience. What was he banned for?

    image
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,945
    There’s always a tweet pt 94

    ‘ I didn't come into politics to raise taxes on working people. Labour will not put up your income tax, national insurance or VAT.

    The Conservatives are the party of high tax.’


    https://x.com/rachelreevesmp/status/1798093675471200748?s=61
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,894
    edited 5:57PM

    Who is the frenchman on the right?

    Curtis Silwa, the Republican candidate.
    Have a bet @ 33s on Sliwa in anticipation of GOP/Trump "fixing" the broken democracy in NYC. I may be disappointed. I'll bet on the scumbag next time.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,542
    FPT:
    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    Dopermean said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It seems the country's going to be a lot quieter once all the people supposedly leaving have gone....

    We all know Reeves and Starmer should have been honest about raising income tax and perhaps VAT before the election but the shadow cast by 1992 is very long and it would have been manna from heaven for Sunak and Hunt - "Labour will raise your taxes, the Conservatives will cut them" - the social media messages write themselves.

    We also know, in the event of their re-election, Hunt would likely have raised taxes as well.

    The deficit remains eye watering - no one objects to borrowing for long term capital investment but borrowing to get from one month to the next doesn't work well for individuals or countries. The truth is even if we can bring the deficit and borrowing down we will still be saddled with the annual debt interest payments of £60-70 billion tearing a chunk out of our available expenditure.

    The priority for now must be getting the deficit down and while some of the more fanciful ideas on here about slashing civil service headcount by 50% and cutting benefits by the same amount might make some on here feel better, we all know that won't happen under a Labour, Conservative or even Reform Government.

    Raising basic rate progressively to 25p, higher rate to nearer 50p and instigating a third higher tax rate is probably where Reeves is going. I'd still be looking at Land Value Taxation or some measure relating to property valuations to replace Stamp Duty and possibly Council Tax. As a small gesture of carrot, I'd put thresholds up by 2x inflation this year and pledge to keep them in line with inflation for the rest of the Parliament.

    It looks as though online gaming and FOBTs in betting shops will face higher tax but it may be the lobbying by the horse racing and greyhound industries has done enough to stop a significant rise in betting duty. I suspect fuel duty will go up by more than inflation as well.

    The biggest problem is the entrenched belief, among the electorate, that increased taxes will simply disappear into the maw of government, without noticeable improvement.

    It's fairly clear that much of Government, local and national has lost control of costs. It's Feast-Or-Famine - either there's no money for X or theres billions spent on something that should cost millions.

    The migrant hotels farce is a prefect example of this - an avalanche of money for the owners. I don't blame them - times are tough in the hotel business. If someone is offering you a zero risk, unbelievably profitable multi-year contract, you'd be insane not to take it.

    We need to start cutting our cloth according to the.... cloth we actually have.

    I know that a British Museum catalogue without a logo, a Richard Rogeresque HQ, some abstract sculpture in the foyer and a mission statement, isn't exciting. Not to mention a "dynamic team" for the Board of Directors on 6 figures each for 2 days of work as year.

    But if we ditch those things, we might be able to afford a... British Museum catalogue.
    People also have very distorted ideas of where the money goes. Migrant hotels and the British Museum are not why public spending is high. The money goes on healthcare and pensions, both of which are going up with an ageing population.
    But you see this pattern through government - the hospitals are both falling down and built for prices that are crazy.

    My relative who runs a building business looked at the contract to build a school local to me - the price was higher, per square foot than digging luxury basements. Which is the most expensive thing to do in the construction industry. He said that he could do the job, and throw in a basement swimming pool, under the playground and still make 30%.
    I can’t understand why contract management is so bad throughout the public sector.
    It’s because “Chief contract negotiator” is a CL6 (sic) position, paying from £45,268 in year 1, to £53,826 in Year 8.

    Meanwhile, the guy on the other side is making 1% of the contract value, and attracts people who want to make £10m a year.
    Agreed. But you won’t fix that with cuts
    Oh I’d be all in favour of central government having a crack team of contract negotiators on unlimited commission based on saving public money.
    Let me at it!

    Carbon Capture Schemes? gone.

    Nuclear power projects - persuade me why they shouldn't be gone....
    Carbon capture was always a waste of money - added cost zero benefit

    Nuclear power - we shouldn’t be building big ones except the Korean design. Small modular ones we should be investing in to get the factories working so we start exporting them
    Carbon capture is a designed to mitigate the amount of CO2 that is released. If you are determined that global temps need to be kept below 'x' degrees then carbon capture might be used as part of the process, even if it is hideously expensive.
    Except that very few countries will be doing it, and the cost/benefit analysis is dreadful compared with other interventions.
    I don't disagree - it wouldn't be my choice. I'd be going hell for leather for renewables (tidal, wind, solar, battery storage, huge storage reservoirs etc).
    The one good use for carbon capture and storage would be if we used excess renewable electricity to create methane (via electrolysis and the Sabatier process) and then captured the carbon when burning that gas. You'd then have a negative carbon process to balance things like the warming from jet plane contrails.

    But we're a long way from that, and instead they're talking about using CCS for production of hydrogen from fossil methane, which is absurd.
    I'm trying to find the link - there was an interesting startup in the US that was looking at Solar -> Methane. But without battery storage or even converter electronics - just feed the power into the process from the panels. So it would run when there was power. The idea was simplicity and lower costs.....
    We also already have a lot of infrastructure for methane distribution and storage.
    Which can be repurposed for hydrogen.
    Only if you ignore the safety protocols for hydrogen.
    The town gas we had before North Sea gas came on stream was roughly half hydrogen aiui

    A comment made a few times, which ignores 3 critical factors.

    1: Half hydrogen is very different to fully hydrogen. Water is one-third hydrogen afterall.

    2: Homes were much better ventilated (read: much worse insulated) then.

    3: Many more people died then due to gas leaks etc in the home than would happen today, despite points 1 and 2.
    "Water is one-third hydrogen afterall." Lol

    I can't think of ANY interpretation of that as correct. By mass H is 2 out of 18. By number of atoms its 2 out of 3.
    Easy to come up with one - It is one third hydrogen, one third oxygen and another third hydrogen.
    Regarding dangers of hydrogen in domestic gas citing town gas
    1) Town gas was much more poisonous due to a high CO content - natural gas with added hydrogen won't have this issue
    2) Gas appliance maintenance was much worse, particularly in rental properties
    3) Most town gas related deaths were CO poisoning

    From wikipedia
    In Hong Kong, town gas is produced from naphtha and natural gas. Its major components are hydrogen (49%), methane (28.5%), carbon dioxide (19.5%) and a small amount of carbon monoxide (3%).[3]

    If domestic gas can be 49% hydrogen in Hong Kong, why couldn't it work in UK?
    At a cursory look, accidental Hong Kong carbon monoxide poisoning deaths are significantly higher than the UK by perhaps 2-3x the rate.
    But hydrogen doesn't contain CO, so diluting natural gas with hydrogen is not going to increase the CO content is it?
    I don't have an answer to that. I was just quoting rough per-pop numbers from UK and Hong Kong.

    Perhaps Town Gas is less consistent in mix?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,593
    moonshine said:

    What did I miss with Leon? The last thing I saw him post was about how the chagos deal was stupid, events today show that had some prescience. What was he banned for?

    Leon wouldn't shut up about Harry Kane scoring more goals than Liverpool this season.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,997
    boulay said:

    Sandpit said:

    Who is the frenchman on the right?

    Curtia Silwa, the Republican candidate.
    Curtis Silwa.
    BTW re your post on Alison Limerick, she might make money from boosted demand for appearances but the chap making the money is the Swedish guy who wrote and produced it and hired to to sing it. He will be laughing.
    I can’t say I’m an expert on music publishing in the 1990s, but if I owned a nightclub in London I’d be booking Ms Limerick for this Saturday night.
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,945

    moonshine said:

    What did I miss with Leon? The last thing I saw him post was about how the chagos deal was stupid, events today show that had some prescience. What was he banned for?

    Leon wouldn't shut up about Harry Kane scoring more goals than Liverpool this season.
    ..


  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,542
    edited 5:59PM
    Joey Barton is in trouble again:

    TV football commentator Lucy Ward has told a jury social media posts from Joey Barton left her "intimidated" and "physically scared".

    Former Manchester City player Mr Barton is alleged to have "crossed the line between free speech and a crime" with messages on X about Ms Ward, fellow football pundit Eni Aluko and broadcaster Jeremy Vine.

    Mr Barton, 43, who has 2.7m followers on the platform, is on trial at Liverpool Crown Court accused of 12 counts of sending a grossly offensive electronic communication with intent to cause distress or anxiety which he denies.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0exrgl217jo
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 58,121
    edited 6:01PM
    MattW said:

    Joey Barton is in trouble again:

    TV football commentator Lucy Ward has told a jury social media posts from Joey Barton left her "intimidated" and "physically scared".

    Former Manchester City player Mr Barton is alleged to have "crossed the line between free speech and a crime" with messages on X about Ms Ward, fellow football pundit Eni Aluko and broadcaster Jeremy Vine.

    Mr Barton, 43, who has 2.7m followers on the platform, is on trial at Liverpool Crown Court accused of 12 counts of sending a grossly offensive electronic communication with intent to cause distress or anxiety which he denies.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0exrgl217jo

    There should, I think be a web page, counting the years in prison, and the millions of dollars/pounds/etc in fines, from posting stupid stuff on Twatter.

    It must be quite a number for each, by now.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3Mrfut-FSw
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,870
    Not so much let them eat cake, as let them starve.

    The president appears to be saying he will NOT abide by the court order to release SNAP benefits even though the WH said they would partially release them
    https://x.com/samstein/status/1985741301560602995
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,870
    I did not know this.

    It’s Election Day. So why doesn’t Kentucky have any this year?

    https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/election/article312728913.html
    ..Between 2026 and 2036, the state’s election schedule includes gubernatorial and other statewide officer races in odd-numbered years: 2027, 2031 and 2035, for example. Federal races, including for president and Congressional races, occur in even years. State House and Senate races, as well as local officials, follow a similar pattern. There’s another off-year in 2029. So what’s up with the weird election schedule? As explained by Adams, who is tasked with overseeing the state’s elections, it comes down to a unique quirk. “In 1992, Kentuckians voted to amend our state constitution to give themselves, and election officials, a year off from elections once every four years,” Adams told the Herald-Leader in an emailed statement, referring to ballot measure No. 2, put before voters in the general election that year...


  • TazTaz Posts: 21,945
    Scott_xP said:

    @joxley.jmoxley.co.uk‬

    Not sure who will win out in the New York mayoralty, but I'm hearing some *very* confident noises from Susan Hall's team.

    That’s not THE Jon Moxley is it. AEW legend.
  • eekeek Posts: 31,802
    Taz said:

    There’s always a tweet pt 94

    ‘ I didn't come into politics to raise taxes on working people. Labour will not put up your income tax, national insurance or VAT.

    The Conservatives are the party of high tax.’


    https://x.com/rachelreevesmp/status/1798093675471200748?s=61

    She was a f***ing idiot trying to get elected.

    It was obvious that tax increases were required back in 2024 - so I'm not going to give her any sympathy...

    Even then she's been beyond useless...
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,651

    MattW said:

    Joey Barton is in trouble again:

    TV football commentator Lucy Ward has told a jury social media posts from Joey Barton left her "intimidated" and "physically scared".

    Former Manchester City player Mr Barton is alleged to have "crossed the line between free speech and a crime" with messages on X about Ms Ward, fellow football pundit Eni Aluko and broadcaster Jeremy Vine.

    Mr Barton, 43, who has 2.7m followers on the platform, is on trial at Liverpool Crown Court accused of 12 counts of sending a grossly offensive electronic communication with intent to cause distress or anxiety which he denies.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0exrgl217jo

    There should, I think be a web page, counting the years in prison, and the millions of dollars/pounds/etc in fines, from posting stupid stuff on Twatter.

    It must be quite a number for each, by now.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3Mrfut-FSw
    I post my stupid stuff here instead, much cheaper.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 21,142
    edited 6:12PM
    When will we start to get results from New York City?
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,945
    MattW said:

    Joey Barton is in trouble again:

    TV football commentator Lucy Ward has told a jury social media posts from Joey Barton left her "intimidated" and "physically scared".

    Former Manchester City player Mr Barton is alleged to have "crossed the line between free speech and a crime" with messages on X about Ms Ward, fellow football pundit Eni Aluko and broadcaster Jeremy Vine.

    Mr Barton, 43, who has 2.7m followers on the platform, is on trial at Liverpool Crown Court accused of 12 counts of sending a grossly offensive electronic communication with intent to cause distress or anxiety which he denies.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0exrgl217jo

    Vine already won his libel case.

    I don’t follow Mr Barton but, AIUI, he was critical of Eluko and the other lady as pundits and compared them to a Gloucester builder and his wife.

    Unpleasant but not criminal I’d have thought.
  • eekeek Posts: 31,802
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,651
    Taz said:

    MattW said:

    Joey Barton is in trouble again:

    TV football commentator Lucy Ward has told a jury social media posts from Joey Barton left her "intimidated" and "physically scared".

    Former Manchester City player Mr Barton is alleged to have "crossed the line between free speech and a crime" with messages on X about Ms Ward, fellow football pundit Eni Aluko and broadcaster Jeremy Vine.

    Mr Barton, 43, who has 2.7m followers on the platform, is on trial at Liverpool Crown Court accused of 12 counts of sending a grossly offensive electronic communication with intent to cause distress or anxiety which he denies.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0exrgl217jo

    Vine already won his libel case.

    I don’t follow Mr Barton but, AIUI, he was critical of Eluko and the other lady as pundits and compared them to a Gloucester builder and his wife.

    Unpleasant but not criminal I’d have thought.
    If I were on the jury I'd probably have a struggle with the intent to cause distress part. It is probably more likely to be intent to be a cock to seek as much attention as possible alongside a complete indifference to distress caused. Not sure that qualifies, rightly or wrongly.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,840
    MattW said:

    FPT:

    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    Dopermean said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It seems the country's going to be a lot quieter once all the people supposedly leaving have gone....

    We all know Reeves and Starmer should have been honest about raising income tax and perhaps VAT before the election but the shadow cast by 1992 is very long and it would have been manna from heaven for Sunak and Hunt - "Labour will raise your taxes, the Conservatives will cut them" - the social media messages write themselves.

    We also know, in the event of their re-election, Hunt would likely have raised taxes as well.

    The deficit remains eye watering - no one objects to borrowing for long term capital investment but borrowing to get from one month to the next doesn't work well for individuals or countries. The truth is even if we can bring the deficit and borrowing down we will still be saddled with the annual debt interest payments of £60-70 billion tearing a chunk out of our available expenditure.

    The priority for now must be getting the deficit down and while some of the more fanciful ideas on here about slashing civil service headcount by 50% and cutting benefits by the same amount might make some on here feel better, we all know that won't happen under a Labour, Conservative or even Reform Government.

    Raising basic rate progressively to 25p, higher rate to nearer 50p and instigating a third higher tax rate is probably where Reeves is going. I'd still be looking at Land Value Taxation or some measure relating to property valuations to replace Stamp Duty and possibly Council Tax. As a small gesture of carrot, I'd put thresholds up by 2x inflation this year and pledge to keep them in line with inflation for the rest of the Parliament.

    It looks as though online gaming and FOBTs in betting shops will face higher tax but it may be the lobbying by the horse racing and greyhound industries has done enough to stop a significant rise in betting duty. I suspect fuel duty will go up by more than inflation as well.

    The biggest problem is the entrenched belief, among the electorate, that increased taxes will simply disappear into the maw of government, without noticeable improvement.

    It's fairly clear that much of Government, local and national has lost control of costs. It's Feast-Or-Famine - either there's no money for X or theres billions spent on something that should cost millions.

    The migrant hotels farce is a prefect example of this - an avalanche of money for the owners. I don't blame them - times are tough in the hotel business. If someone is offering you a zero risk, unbelievably profitable multi-year contract, you'd be insane not to take it.

    We need to start cutting our cloth according to the.... cloth we actually have.

    I know that a British Museum catalogue without a logo, a Richard Rogeresque HQ, some abstract sculpture in the foyer and a mission statement, isn't exciting. Not to mention a "dynamic team" for the Board of Directors on 6 figures each for 2 days of work as year.

    But if we ditch those things, we might be able to afford a... British Museum catalogue.
    People also have very distorted ideas of where the money goes. Migrant hotels and the British Museum are not why public spending is high. The money goes on healthcare and pensions, both of which are going up with an ageing population.
    But you see this pattern through government - the hospitals are both falling down and built for prices that are crazy.

    My relative who runs a building business looked at the contract to build a school local to me - the price was higher, per square foot than digging luxury basements. Which is the most expensive thing to do in the construction industry. He said that he could do the job, and throw in a basement swimming pool, under the playground and still make 30%.
    I can’t understand why contract management is so bad throughout the public sector.
    It’s because “Chief contract negotiator” is a CL6 (sic) position, paying from £45,268 in year 1, to £53,826 in Year 8.

    Meanwhile, the guy on the other side is making 1% of the contract value, and attracts people who want to make £10m a year.
    Agreed. But you won’t fix that with cuts
    Oh I’d be all in favour of central government having a crack team of contract negotiators on unlimited commission based on saving public money.
    Let me at it!

    Carbon Capture Schemes? gone.

    Nuclear power projects - persuade me why they shouldn't be gone....
    Carbon capture was always a waste of money - added cost zero benefit

    Nuclear power - we shouldn’t be building big ones except the Korean design. Small modular ones we should be investing in to get the factories working so we start exporting them
    Carbon capture is a designed to mitigate the amount of CO2 that is released. If you are determined that global temps need to be kept below 'x' degrees then carbon capture might be used as part of the process, even if it is hideously expensive.
    Except that very few countries will be doing it, and the cost/benefit analysis is dreadful compared with other interventions.
    I don't disagree - it wouldn't be my choice. I'd be going hell for leather for renewables (tidal, wind, solar, battery storage, huge storage reservoirs etc).
    The one good use for carbon capture and storage would be if we used excess renewable electricity to create methane (via electrolysis and the Sabatier process) and then captured the carbon when burning that gas. You'd then have a negative carbon process to balance things like the warming from jet plane contrails.

    But we're a long way from that, and instead they're talking about using CCS for production of hydrogen from fossil methane, which is absurd.
    I'm trying to find the link - there was an interesting startup in the US that was looking at Solar -> Methane. But without battery storage or even converter electronics - just feed the power into the process from the panels. So it would run when there was power. The idea was simplicity and lower costs.....
    We also already have a lot of infrastructure for methane distribution and storage.
    Which can be repurposed for hydrogen.
    Only if you ignore the safety protocols for hydrogen.
    The town gas we had before North Sea gas came on stream was roughly half hydrogen aiui

    A comment made a few times, which ignores 3 critical factors.

    1: Half hydrogen is very different to fully hydrogen. Water is one-third hydrogen afterall.

    2: Homes were much better ventilated (read: much worse insulated) then.

    3: Many more people died then due to gas leaks etc in the home than would happen today, despite points 1 and 2.
    "Water is one-third hydrogen afterall." Lol

    I can't think of ANY interpretation of that as correct. By mass H is 2 out of 18. By number of atoms its 2 out of 3.
    Easy to come up with one - It is one third hydrogen, one third oxygen and another third hydrogen.
    Regarding dangers of hydrogen in domestic gas citing town gas
    1) Town gas was much more poisonous due to a high CO content - natural gas with added hydrogen won't have this issue
    2) Gas appliance maintenance was much worse, particularly in rental properties
    3) Most town gas related deaths were CO poisoning

    From wikipedia
    In Hong Kong, town gas is produced from naphtha and natural gas. Its major components are hydrogen (49%), methane (28.5%), carbon dioxide (19.5%) and a small amount of carbon monoxide (3%).[3]

    If domestic gas can be 49% hydrogen in Hong Kong, why couldn't it work in UK?
    At a cursory look, accidental Hong Kong carbon monoxide poisoning deaths are significantly higher than the UK by perhaps 2-3x the rate.
    But hydrogen doesn't contain CO, so diluting natural gas with hydrogen is not going to increase the CO content is it?
    I don't have an answer to that. I was just quoting rough per-pop numbers from UK and Hong Kong.

    Perhaps Town Gas is less consistent in mix?
    It was rhetorical :)
    The CO in Hong Kong's gas must come from the manufacturing process.

    AIUI proposal in UK was to dilute natural gas (negligible CO) with hydrogen (no CO) resulting in domestic gas with negligible CO - update blend with 20% Hydrogen by volume.

    The point is the UK used to use domestic gas with ~ 20% Hydrogen, this was more dangerous than natural gas but because it also contained CO, and Hong Kong currently has domestic gas with a Hydrogen content ~ 49%

    So safety concerns about blending 20 % Hydrogen with Natural Gas are overblown and could reduce CO2 emissions from domestic use by 6-7% with no modification to domestic appliances.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,761
    Conservatives call for airport style security at entry to all barber shops.


    (OK, I made that up.)
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,761

    Who is the frenchman on the right?

    Frank Spencer, isn't it?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 58,121
    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    Dopermean said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It seems the country's going to be a lot quieter once all the people supposedly leaving have gone....

    We all know Reeves and Starmer should have been honest about raising income tax and perhaps VAT before the election but the shadow cast by 1992 is very long and it would have been manna from heaven for Sunak and Hunt - "Labour will raise your taxes, the Conservatives will cut them" - the social media messages write themselves.

    We also know, in the event of their re-election, Hunt would likely have raised taxes as well.

    The deficit remains eye watering - no one objects to borrowing for long term capital investment but borrowing to get from one month to the next doesn't work well for individuals or countries. The truth is even if we can bring the deficit and borrowing down we will still be saddled with the annual debt interest payments of £60-70 billion tearing a chunk out of our available expenditure.

    The priority for now must be getting the deficit down and while some of the more fanciful ideas on here about slashing civil service headcount by 50% and cutting benefits by the same amount might make some on here feel better, we all know that won't happen under a Labour, Conservative or even Reform Government.

    Raising basic rate progressively to 25p, higher rate to nearer 50p and instigating a third higher tax rate is probably where Reeves is going. I'd still be looking at Land Value Taxation or some measure relating to property valuations to replace Stamp Duty and possibly Council Tax. As a small gesture of carrot, I'd put thresholds up by 2x inflation this year and pledge to keep them in line with inflation for the rest of the Parliament.

    It looks as though online gaming and FOBTs in betting shops will face higher tax but it may be the lobbying by the horse racing and greyhound industries has done enough to stop a significant rise in betting duty. I suspect fuel duty will go up by more than inflation as well.

    The biggest problem is the entrenched belief, among the electorate, that increased taxes will simply disappear into the maw of government, without noticeable improvement.

    It's fairly clear that much of Government, local and national has lost control of costs. It's Feast-Or-Famine - either there's no money for X or theres billions spent on something that should cost millions.

    The migrant hotels farce is a prefect example of this - an avalanche of money for the owners. I don't blame them - times are tough in the hotel business. If someone is offering you a zero risk, unbelievably profitable multi-year contract, you'd be insane not to take it.

    We need to start cutting our cloth according to the.... cloth we actually have.

    I know that a British Museum catalogue without a logo, a Richard Rogeresque HQ, some abstract sculpture in the foyer and a mission statement, isn't exciting. Not to mention a "dynamic team" for the Board of Directors on 6 figures each for 2 days of work as year.

    But if we ditch those things, we might be able to afford a... British Museum catalogue.
    People also have very distorted ideas of where the money goes. Migrant hotels and the British Museum are not why public spending is high. The money goes on healthcare and pensions, both of which are going up with an ageing population.
    But you see this pattern through government - the hospitals are both falling down and built for prices that are crazy.

    My relative who runs a building business looked at the contract to build a school local to me - the price was higher, per square foot than digging luxury basements. Which is the most expensive thing to do in the construction industry. He said that he could do the job, and throw in a basement swimming pool, under the playground and still make 30%.
    I can’t understand why contract management is so bad throughout the public sector.
    It’s because “Chief contract negotiator” is a CL6 (sic) position, paying from £45,268 in year 1, to £53,826 in Year 8.

    Meanwhile, the guy on the other side is making 1% of the contract value, and attracts people who want to make £10m a year.
    Agreed. But you won’t fix that with cuts
    Oh I’d be all in favour of central government having a crack team of contract negotiators on unlimited commission based on saving public money.
    Let me at it!

    Carbon Capture Schemes? gone.

    Nuclear power projects - persuade me why they shouldn't be gone....
    Carbon capture was always a waste of money - added cost zero benefit

    Nuclear power - we shouldn’t be building big ones except the Korean design. Small modular ones we should be investing in to get the factories working so we start exporting them
    Carbon capture is a designed to mitigate the amount of CO2 that is released. If you are determined that global temps need to be kept below 'x' degrees then carbon capture might be used as part of the process, even if it is hideously expensive.
    Except that very few countries will be doing it, and the cost/benefit analysis is dreadful compared with other interventions.
    I don't disagree - it wouldn't be my choice. I'd be going hell for leather for renewables (tidal, wind, solar, battery storage, huge storage reservoirs etc).
    The one good use for carbon capture and storage would be if we used excess renewable electricity to create methane (via electrolysis and the Sabatier process) and then captured the carbon when burning that gas. You'd then have a negative carbon process to balance things like the warming from jet plane contrails.

    But we're a long way from that, and instead they're talking about using CCS for production of hydrogen from fossil methane, which is absurd.
    I'm trying to find the link - there was an interesting startup in the US that was looking at Solar -> Methane. But without battery storage or even converter electronics - just feed the power into the process from the panels. So it would run when there was power. The idea was simplicity and lower costs.....
    We also already have a lot of infrastructure for methane distribution and storage.
    Which can be repurposed for hydrogen.
    Only if you ignore the safety protocols for hydrogen.
    The town gas we had before North Sea gas came on stream was roughly half hydrogen aiui

    A comment made a few times, which ignores 3 critical factors.

    1: Half hydrogen is very different to fully hydrogen. Water is one-third hydrogen afterall.

    2: Homes were much better ventilated (read: much worse insulated) then.

    3: Many more people died then due to gas leaks etc in the home than would happen today, despite points 1 and 2.
    "Water is one-third hydrogen afterall." Lol

    I can't think of ANY interpretation of that as correct. By mass H is 2 out of 18. By number of atoms its 2 out of 3.
    Easy to come up with one - It is one third hydrogen, one third oxygen and another third hydrogen.
    Regarding dangers of hydrogen in domestic gas citing town gas
    1) Town gas was much more poisonous due to a high CO content - natural gas with added hydrogen won't have this issue
    2) Gas appliance maintenance was much worse, particularly in rental properties
    3) Most town gas related deaths were CO poisoning

    From wikipedia
    In Hong Kong, town gas is produced from naphtha and natural gas. Its major components are hydrogen (49%), methane (28.5%), carbon dioxide (19.5%) and a small amount of carbon monoxide (3%).[3]

    If domestic gas can be 49% hydrogen in Hong Kong, why couldn't it work in UK?
    At a cursory look, accidental Hong Kong carbon monoxide poisoning deaths are significantly higher than the UK by perhaps 2-3x the rate.
    But hydrogen doesn't contain CO, so diluting natural gas with hydrogen is not going to increase the CO content is it?
    I don't have an answer to that. I was just quoting rough per-pop numbers from UK and Hong Kong.

    Perhaps Town Gas is less consistent in mix?
    It was rhetorical :)
    The CO in Hong Kong's gas must come from the manufacturing process.

    AIUI proposal in UK was to dilute natural gas (negligible CO) with hydrogen (no CO) resulting in domestic gas with negligible CO - update blend with 20% Hydrogen by volume.

    The point is the UK used to use domestic gas with ~ 20% Hydrogen, this was more dangerous than natural gas but because it also contained CO, and Hong Kong currently has domestic gas with a Hydrogen content ~ 49%

    So safety concerns about blending 20 % Hydrogen with Natural Gas are overblown and could reduce CO2 emissions from domestic use by 6-7% with no modification to domestic appliances.
    Except that handling rules for hydrogen preclude sending it through pipe work not spec’s or tested for it.

    That’ll be fun - getting politicians to take on that risk.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,149

    Who is the frenchman on the right?

    Frank Spencer, isn't it?
    Bet he?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 17,198
    Is this 4D chess? They're trying to boost Mamdani's chances by having a parade of grotesques endorse the loathsome Cuomo, so they can paint the Dems as commie islamists in time for the midterms when he wins?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,761
    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    Dopermean said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It seems the country's going to be a lot quieter once all the people supposedly leaving have gone....

    We all know Reeves and Starmer should have been honest about raising income tax and perhaps VAT before the election but the shadow cast by 1992 is very long and it would have been manna from heaven for Sunak and Hunt - "Labour will raise your taxes, the Conservatives will cut them" - the social media messages write themselves.

    We also know, in the event of their re-election, Hunt would likely have raised taxes as well.

    The deficit remains eye watering - no one objects to borrowing for long term capital investment but borrowing to get from one month to the next doesn't work well for individuals or countries. The truth is even if we can bring the deficit and borrowing down we will still be saddled with the annual debt interest payments of £60-70 billion tearing a chunk out of our available expenditure.

    The priority for now must be getting the deficit down and while some of the more fanciful ideas on here about slashing civil service headcount by 50% and cutting benefits by the same amount might make some on here feel better, we all know that won't happen under a Labour, Conservative or even Reform Government.

    Raising basic rate progressively to 25p, higher rate to nearer 50p and instigating a third higher tax rate is probably where Reeves is going. I'd still be looking at Land Value Taxation or some measure relating to property valuations to replace Stamp Duty and possibly Council Tax. As a small gesture of carrot, I'd put thresholds up by 2x inflation this year and pledge to keep them in line with inflation for the rest of the Parliament.

    It looks as though online gaming and FOBTs in betting shops will face higher tax but it may be the lobbying by the horse racing and greyhound industries has done enough to stop a significant rise in betting duty. I suspect fuel duty will go up by more than inflation as well.

    The biggest problem is the entrenched belief, among the electorate, that increased taxes will simply disappear into the maw of government, without noticeable improvement.

    It's fairly clear that much of Government, local and national has lost control of costs. It's Feast-Or-Famine - either there's no money for X or theres billions spent on something that should cost millions.

    The migrant hotels farce is a prefect example of this - an avalanche of money for the owners. I don't blame them - times are tough in the hotel business. If someone is offering you a zero risk, unbelievably profitable multi-year contract, you'd be insane not to take it.

    We need to start cutting our cloth according to the.... cloth we actually have.

    I know that a British Museum catalogue without a logo, a Richard Rogeresque HQ, some abstract sculpture in the foyer and a mission statement, isn't exciting. Not to mention a "dynamic team" for the Board of Directors on 6 figures each for 2 days of work as year.

    But if we ditch those things, we might be able to afford a... British Museum catalogue.
    People also have very distorted ideas of where the money goes. Migrant hotels and the British Museum are not why public spending is high. The money goes on healthcare and pensions, both of which are going up with an ageing population.
    But you see this pattern through government - the hospitals are both falling down and built for prices that are crazy.

    My relative who runs a building business looked at the contract to build a school local to me - the price was higher, per square foot than digging luxury basements. Which is the most expensive thing to do in the construction industry. He said that he could do the job, and throw in a basement swimming pool, under the playground and still make 30%.
    I can’t understand why contract management is so bad throughout the public sector.
    It’s because “Chief contract negotiator” is a CL6 (sic) position, paying from £45,268 in year 1, to £53,826 in Year 8.

    Meanwhile, the guy on the other side is making 1% of the contract value, and attracts people who want to make £10m a year.
    Agreed. But you won’t fix that with cuts
    Oh I’d be all in favour of central government having a crack team of contract negotiators on unlimited commission based on saving public money.
    Let me at it!

    Carbon Capture Schemes? gone.

    Nuclear power projects - persuade me why they shouldn't be gone....
    Carbon capture was always a waste of money - added cost zero benefit

    Nuclear power - we shouldn’t be building big ones except the Korean design. Small modular ones we should be investing in to get the factories working so we start exporting them
    Carbon capture is a designed to mitigate the amount of CO2 that is released. If you are determined that global temps need to be kept below 'x' degrees then carbon capture might be used as part of the process, even if it is hideously expensive.
    Except that very few countries will be doing it, and the cost/benefit analysis is dreadful compared with other interventions.
    I don't disagree - it wouldn't be my choice. I'd be going hell for leather for renewables (tidal, wind, solar, battery storage, huge storage reservoirs etc).
    The one good use for carbon capture and storage would be if we used excess renewable electricity to create methane (via electrolysis and the Sabatier process) and then captured the carbon when burning that gas. You'd then have a negative carbon process to balance things like the warming from jet plane contrails.

    But we're a long way from that, and instead they're talking about using CCS for production of hydrogen from fossil methane, which is absurd.
    I'm trying to find the link - there was an interesting startup in the US that was looking at Solar -> Methane. But without battery storage or even converter electronics - just feed the power into the process from the panels. So it would run when there was power. The idea was simplicity and lower costs.....
    We also already have a lot of infrastructure for methane distribution and storage.
    Which can be repurposed for hydrogen.
    Only if you ignore the safety protocols for hydrogen.
    The town gas we had before North Sea gas came on stream was roughly half hydrogen aiui

    A comment made a few times, which ignores 3 critical factors.

    1: Half hydrogen is very different to fully hydrogen. Water is one-third hydrogen afterall.

    2: Homes were much better ventilated (read: much worse insulated) then.

    3: Many more people died then due to gas leaks etc in the home than would happen today, despite points 1 and 2.
    "Water is one-third hydrogen afterall." Lol

    I can't think of ANY interpretation of that as correct. By mass H is 2 out of 18. By number of atoms its 2 out of 3.
    Easy to come up with one - It is one third hydrogen, one third oxygen and another third hydrogen.
    Regarding dangers of hydrogen in domestic gas citing town gas
    1) Town gas was much more poisonous due to a high CO content - natural gas with added hydrogen won't have this issue
    2) Gas appliance maintenance was much worse, particularly in rental properties
    3) Most town gas related deaths were CO poisoning

    From wikipedia
    In Hong Kong, town gas is produced from naphtha and natural gas. Its major components are hydrogen (49%), methane (28.5%), carbon dioxide (19.5%) and a small amount of carbon monoxide (3%).[3]

    If domestic gas can be 49% hydrogen in Hong Kong, why couldn't it work in UK?
    At a cursory look, accidental Hong Kong carbon monoxide poisoning deaths are significantly higher than the UK by perhaps 2-3x the rate.
    But hydrogen doesn't contain CO, so diluting natural gas with hydrogen is not going to increase the CO content is it?
    I don't have an answer to that. I was just quoting rough per-pop numbers from UK and Hong Kong.

    Perhaps Town Gas is less consistent in mix?
    It was rhetorical :)
    The CO in Hong Kong's gas must come from the manufacturing process.

    AIUI proposal in UK was to dilute natural gas (negligible CO) with hydrogen (no CO) resulting in domestic gas with negligible CO - update blend with 20% Hydrogen by volume.

    The point is the UK used to use domestic gas with ~ 20% Hydrogen, this was more dangerous than natural gas but because it also contained CO, and Hong Kong currently has domestic gas with a Hydrogen content ~ 49%

    So safety concerns about blending 20 % Hydrogen with Natural Gas are overblown and could reduce CO2 emissions from domestic use by 6-7% with no modification to domestic appliances.
    People die fr9m CO poisoning as a result of incomplete combustion of methane in faulty appliances. If we switch to 100% hydrogen, this is not possible.

    Safety studies have shown that the increased risk associated with leakage of hydrogen is compensated by the elimination of the CO poisoning risk.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,870
    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    Dopermean said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It seems the country's going to be a lot quieter once all the people supposedly leaving have gone....

    We all know Reeves and Starmer should have been honest about raising income tax and perhaps VAT before the election but the shadow cast by 1992 is very long and it would have been manna from heaven for Sunak and Hunt - "Labour will raise your taxes, the Conservatives will cut them" - the social media messages write themselves.

    We also know, in the event of their re-election, Hunt would likely have raised taxes as well.

    The deficit remains eye watering - no one objects to borrowing for long term capital investment but borrowing to get from one month to the next doesn't work well for individuals or countries. The truth is even if we can bring the deficit and borrowing down we will still be saddled with the annual debt interest payments of £60-70 billion tearing a chunk out of our available expenditure.

    The priority for now must be getting the deficit down and while some of the more fanciful ideas on here about slashing civil service headcount by 50% and cutting benefits by the same amount might make some on here feel better, we all know that won't happen under a Labour, Conservative or even Reform Government.

    Raising basic rate progressively to 25p, higher rate to nearer 50p and instigating a third higher tax rate is probably where Reeves is going. I'd still be looking at Land Value Taxation or some measure relating to property valuations to replace Stamp Duty and possibly Council Tax. As a small gesture of carrot, I'd put thresholds up by 2x inflation this year and pledge to keep them in line with inflation for the rest of the Parliament.

    It looks as though online gaming and FOBTs in betting shops will face higher tax but it may be the lobbying by the horse racing and greyhound industries has done enough to stop a significant rise in betting duty. I suspect fuel duty will go up by more than inflation as well.

    The biggest problem is the entrenched belief, among the electorate, that increased taxes will simply disappear into the maw of government, without noticeable improvement.

    It's fairly clear that much of Government, local and national has lost control of costs. It's Feast-Or-Famine - either there's no money for X or theres billions spent on something that should cost millions.

    The migrant hotels farce is a prefect example of this - an avalanche of money for the owners. I don't blame them - times are tough in the hotel business. If someone is offering you a zero risk, unbelievably profitable multi-year contract, you'd be insane not to take it.

    We need to start cutting our cloth according to the.... cloth we actually have.

    I know that a British Museum catalogue without a logo, a Richard Rogeresque HQ, some abstract sculpture in the foyer and a mission statement, isn't exciting. Not to mention a "dynamic team" for the Board of Directors on 6 figures each for 2 days of work as year.

    But if we ditch those things, we might be able to afford a... British Museum catalogue.
    People also have very distorted ideas of where the money goes. Migrant hotels and the British Museum are not why public spending is high. The money goes on healthcare and pensions, both of which are going up with an ageing population.
    But you see this pattern through government - the hospitals are both falling down and built for prices that are crazy.

    My relative who runs a building business looked at the contract to build a school local to me - the price was higher, per square foot than digging luxury basements. Which is the most expensive thing to do in the construction industry. He said that he could do the job, and throw in a basement swimming pool, under the playground and still make 30%.
    I can’t understand why contract management is so bad throughout the public sector.
    It’s because “Chief contract negotiator” is a CL6 (sic) position, paying from £45,268 in year 1, to £53,826 in Year 8.

    Meanwhile, the guy on the other side is making 1% of the contract value, and attracts people who want to make £10m a year.
    Agreed. But you won’t fix that with cuts
    Oh I’d be all in favour of central government having a crack team of contract negotiators on unlimited commission based on saving public money.
    Let me at it!

    Carbon Capture Schemes? gone.

    Nuclear power projects - persuade me why they shouldn't be gone....
    Carbon capture was always a waste of money - added cost zero benefit

    Nuclear power - we shouldn’t be building big ones except the Korean design. Small modular ones we should be investing in to get the factories working so we start exporting them
    Carbon capture is a designed to mitigate the amount of CO2 that is released. If you are determined that global temps need to be kept below 'x' degrees then carbon capture might be used as part of the process, even if it is hideously expensive.
    Except that very few countries will be doing it, and the cost/benefit analysis is dreadful compared with other interventions.
    I don't disagree - it wouldn't be my choice. I'd be going hell for leather for renewables (tidal, wind, solar, battery storage, huge storage reservoirs etc).
    The one good use for carbon capture and storage would be if we used excess renewable electricity to create methane (via electrolysis and the Sabatier process) and then captured the carbon when burning that gas. You'd then have a negative carbon process to balance things like the warming from jet plane contrails.

    But we're a long way from that, and instead they're talking about using CCS for production of hydrogen from fossil methane, which is absurd.
    I'm trying to find the link - there was an interesting startup in the US that was looking at Solar -> Methane. But without battery storage or even converter electronics - just feed the power into the process from the panels. So it would run when there was power. The idea was simplicity and lower costs.....
    We also already have a lot of infrastructure for methane distribution and storage.
    Which can be repurposed for hydrogen.
    Only if you ignore the safety protocols for hydrogen.
    The town gas we had before North Sea gas came on stream was roughly half hydrogen aiui

    A comment made a few times, which ignores 3 critical factors.

    1: Half hydrogen is very different to fully hydrogen. Water is one-third hydrogen afterall.

    2: Homes were much better ventilated (read: much worse insulated) then.

    3: Many more people died then due to gas leaks etc in the home than would happen today, despite points 1 and 2.
    "Water is one-third hydrogen afterall." Lol

    I can't think of ANY interpretation of that as correct. By mass H is 2 out of 18. By number of atoms its 2 out of 3.
    Easy to come up with one - It is one third hydrogen, one third oxygen and another third hydrogen.
    Regarding dangers of hydrogen in domestic gas citing town gas
    1) Town gas was much more poisonous due to a high CO content - natural gas with added hydrogen won't have this issue
    2) Gas appliance maintenance was much worse, particularly in rental properties
    3) Most town gas related deaths were CO poisoning

    From wikipedia
    In Hong Kong, town gas is produced from naphtha and natural gas. Its major components are hydrogen (49%), methane (28.5%), carbon dioxide (19.5%) and a small amount of carbon monoxide (3%).[3]

    If domestic gas can be 49% hydrogen in Hong Kong, why couldn't it work in UK?
    At a cursory look, accidental Hong Kong carbon monoxide poisoning deaths are significantly higher than the UK by perhaps 2-3x the rate.
    But hydrogen doesn't contain CO, so diluting natural gas with hydrogen is not going to increase the CO content is it?
    I don't have an answer to that. I was just quoting rough per-pop numbers from UK and Hong Kong.

    Perhaps Town Gas is less consistent in mix?
    It was rhetorical :)
    The CO in Hong Kong's gas must come from the manufacturing process.

    AIUI proposal in UK was to dilute natural gas (negligible CO) with hydrogen (no CO) resulting in domestic gas with negligible CO - update blend with 20% Hydrogen by volume.

    The point is the UK used to use domestic gas with ~ 20% Hydrogen, this was more dangerous than natural gas but because it also contained CO, and Hong Kong currently has domestic gas with a Hydrogen content ~ 49%

    So safety concerns about blending 20 % Hydrogen with Natural Gas are overblown and could reduce CO2 emissions from domestic use by 6-7% with no modification to domestic appliances.
    What about the it's a stupidly expensive and impractical idea concerns ?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,651

    Conservatives call for airport style security at entry to all barber shops.


    (OK, I made that up.)

    Sorry to come in with a barb but this is not the finest example of your razor sharp wit.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,870
    From the trial of the Subway One, who threw a sandwich at one of Miller's goons.

    https://x.com/mollylroberts/status/1985732428762132840
    ...The officer Sandwich Guy is charged with assaulting testifies that he could feel the impact of the sandwich through his ballistic vest, and it “exploded all over my uniform.” He says he could “smell the onions and the mustard.”..

    ..We’re back to the sandwich video. The paper, the defense points out, is still on. “You don’t see there’s mustard on it?” “You can’t tell there’s ketchup on it?” Mayonnaise? Lettuce? Tomato? “In fact, that sandwich hasn’t exploded at all?” Witness says the sandwich “looks bent and out of shape.”..

    ..Agent Lairmore is done with his testimony. Prosecution asked further about the condiments and he said there was mustard on his uniform and an onion hanging on his radio antenna. Don’t think defense was going for a pun when she called him a “seasoned officer,” but you never know…
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,870

    Conservatives call for airport style security at entry to all barber shops.


    (OK, I made that up.)

    Sorry to come in with a barb but this is not the finest example of your razor sharp wit.
    Cutting.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 58,121
    Nigelb said:

    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    Dopermean said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It seems the country's going to be a lot quieter once all the people supposedly leaving have gone....

    We all know Reeves and Starmer should have been honest about raising income tax and perhaps VAT before the election but the shadow cast by 1992 is very long and it would have been manna from heaven for Sunak and Hunt - "Labour will raise your taxes, the Conservatives will cut them" - the social media messages write themselves.

    We also know, in the event of their re-election, Hunt would likely have raised taxes as well.

    The deficit remains eye watering - no one objects to borrowing for long term capital investment but borrowing to get from one month to the next doesn't work well for individuals or countries. The truth is even if we can bring the deficit and borrowing down we will still be saddled with the annual debt interest payments of £60-70 billion tearing a chunk out of our available expenditure.

    The priority for now must be getting the deficit down and while some of the more fanciful ideas on here about slashing civil service headcount by 50% and cutting benefits by the same amount might make some on here feel better, we all know that won't happen under a Labour, Conservative or even Reform Government.

    Raising basic rate progressively to 25p, higher rate to nearer 50p and instigating a third higher tax rate is probably where Reeves is going. I'd still be looking at Land Value Taxation or some measure relating to property valuations to replace Stamp Duty and possibly Council Tax. As a small gesture of carrot, I'd put thresholds up by 2x inflation this year and pledge to keep them in line with inflation for the rest of the Parliament.

    It looks as though online gaming and FOBTs in betting shops will face higher tax but it may be the lobbying by the horse racing and greyhound industries has done enough to stop a significant rise in betting duty. I suspect fuel duty will go up by more than inflation as well.

    The biggest problem is the entrenched belief, among the electorate, that increased taxes will simply disappear into the maw of government, without noticeable improvement.

    It's fairly clear that much of Government, local and national has lost control of costs. It's Feast-Or-Famine - either there's no money for X or theres billions spent on something that should cost millions.

    The migrant hotels farce is a prefect example of this - an avalanche of money for the owners. I don't blame them - times are tough in the hotel business. If someone is offering you a zero risk, unbelievably profitable multi-year contract, you'd be insane not to take it.

    We need to start cutting our cloth according to the.... cloth we actually have.

    I know that a British Museum catalogue without a logo, a Richard Rogeresque HQ, some abstract sculpture in the foyer and a mission statement, isn't exciting. Not to mention a "dynamic team" for the Board of Directors on 6 figures each for 2 days of work as year.

    But if we ditch those things, we might be able to afford a... British Museum catalogue.
    People also have very distorted ideas of where the money goes. Migrant hotels and the British Museum are not why public spending is high. The money goes on healthcare and pensions, both of which are going up with an ageing population.
    But you see this pattern through government - the hospitals are both falling down and built for prices that are crazy.

    My relative who runs a building business looked at the contract to build a school local to me - the price was higher, per square foot than digging luxury basements. Which is the most expensive thing to do in the construction industry. He said that he could do the job, and throw in a basement swimming pool, under the playground and still make 30%.
    I can’t understand why contract management is so bad throughout the public sector.
    It’s because “Chief contract negotiator” is a CL6 (sic) position, paying from £45,268 in year 1, to £53,826 in Year 8.

    Meanwhile, the guy on the other side is making 1% of the contract value, and attracts people who want to make £10m a year.
    Agreed. But you won’t fix that with cuts
    Oh I’d be all in favour of central government having a crack team of contract negotiators on unlimited commission based on saving public money.
    Let me at it!

    Carbon Capture Schemes? gone.

    Nuclear power projects - persuade me why they shouldn't be gone....
    Carbon capture was always a waste of money - added cost zero benefit

    Nuclear power - we shouldn’t be building big ones except the Korean design. Small modular ones we should be investing in to get the factories working so we start exporting them
    Carbon capture is a designed to mitigate the amount of CO2 that is released. If you are determined that global temps need to be kept below 'x' degrees then carbon capture might be used as part of the process, even if it is hideously expensive.
    Except that very few countries will be doing it, and the cost/benefit analysis is dreadful compared with other interventions.
    I don't disagree - it wouldn't be my choice. I'd be going hell for leather for renewables (tidal, wind, solar, battery storage, huge storage reservoirs etc).
    The one good use for carbon capture and storage would be if we used excess renewable electricity to create methane (via electrolysis and the Sabatier process) and then captured the carbon when burning that gas. You'd then have a negative carbon process to balance things like the warming from jet plane contrails.

    But we're a long way from that, and instead they're talking about using CCS for production of hydrogen from fossil methane, which is absurd.
    I'm trying to find the link - there was an interesting startup in the US that was looking at Solar -> Methane. But without battery storage or even converter electronics - just feed the power into the process from the panels. So it would run when there was power. The idea was simplicity and lower costs.....
    We also already have a lot of infrastructure for methane distribution and storage.
    Which can be repurposed for hydrogen.
    Only if you ignore the safety protocols for hydrogen.
    The town gas we had before North Sea gas came on stream was roughly half hydrogen aiui

    A comment made a few times, which ignores 3 critical factors.

    1: Half hydrogen is very different to fully hydrogen. Water is one-third hydrogen afterall.

    2: Homes were much better ventilated (read: much worse insulated) then.

    3: Many more people died then due to gas leaks etc in the home than would happen today, despite points 1 and 2.
    "Water is one-third hydrogen afterall." Lol

    I can't think of ANY interpretation of that as correct. By mass H is 2 out of 18. By number of atoms its 2 out of 3.
    Easy to come up with one - It is one third hydrogen, one third oxygen and another third hydrogen.
    Regarding dangers of hydrogen in domestic gas citing town gas
    1) Town gas was much more poisonous due to a high CO content - natural gas with added hydrogen won't have this issue
    2) Gas appliance maintenance was much worse, particularly in rental properties
    3) Most town gas related deaths were CO poisoning

    From wikipedia
    In Hong Kong, town gas is produced from naphtha and natural gas. Its major components are hydrogen (49%), methane (28.5%), carbon dioxide (19.5%) and a small amount of carbon monoxide (3%).[3]

    If domestic gas can be 49% hydrogen in Hong Kong, why couldn't it work in UK?
    At a cursory look, accidental Hong Kong carbon monoxide poisoning deaths are significantly higher than the UK by perhaps 2-3x the rate.
    But hydrogen doesn't contain CO, so diluting natural gas with hydrogen is not going to increase the CO content is it?
    I don't have an answer to that. I was just quoting rough per-pop numbers from UK and Hong Kong.

    Perhaps Town Gas is less consistent in mix?
    It was rhetorical :)
    The CO in Hong Kong's gas must come from the manufacturing process.

    AIUI proposal in UK was to dilute natural gas (negligible CO) with hydrogen (no CO) resulting in domestic gas with negligible CO - update blend with 20% Hydrogen by volume.

    The point is the UK used to use domestic gas with ~ 20% Hydrogen, this was more dangerous than natural gas but because it also contained CO, and Hong Kong currently has domestic gas with a Hydrogen content ~ 49%

    So safety concerns about blending 20 % Hydrogen with Natural Gas are overblown and could reduce CO2 emissions from domestic use by 6-7% with no modification to domestic appliances.
    What about the it's a stupidly expensive and impractical idea concerns ?
    A favourite - the gas engineer I employed to last service the boiler had done a Hydrogen certification. Theory only. The facility he went to had assessed actually using hydrogen for the course as too dangerous - they needed to rebuild the place to match hydrogen handling rules. And hadn't got the funds for that, yet.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,876
    I have to say that on the 'winding up the right people' metric Mamdani performs spectacularly. If that's what this election is about we are surely looking at a landslide.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 58,121
    kinabalu said:

    I have to say that on the 'winding up the right people' metric Mamdani performs spectacularly. If that's what this election is about we are surely looking at a landslide.

    That's what lots of people said about some very bad choices in the past.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,288
    Nigelb said:

    Conservatives call for airport style security at entry to all barber shops.


    (OK, I made that up.)

    Sorry to come in with a barb but this is not the finest example of your razor sharp wit.
    Cutting.
    Presumably, Labour would put the scanners at the exit of the barber's. Not the entrance.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,876

    kinabalu said:

    I have to say that on the 'winding up the right people' metric Mamdani performs spectacularly. If that's what this election is about we are surely looking at a landslide.

    That's what lots of people said about some very bad choices in the past.
    True. He's the right choice here though.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,306
    edited 6:44PM

    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Tommy Ten Terms has been found innocent:

    On Tuesday, District Judge Sam Goozee found Robinson not guilty of failing to comply with the counter-terrorism powers during the incident on July 28 last year.

    Mr Goozee said: “I cannot put out of my mind that it was actually what you stood for and your political beliefs that acted for the principle reason for this stop.”

    He also said Pc Mitchell Thorogood’s decision to stop Robinson was based on a “protected characteristic”, adding: “I cannot convict you.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/04/tommy-robinson-not-guilty-terror-offence/

    I don't have a clue what the Judge means. "Protected characteristic" is the language of the Equality Act. What protected characteristic?

    There's a bit of a whiff of police cockup about this imo. If he had an illegal amount of cash on him for export undeclared, why was that not charged?

    Presumably the protected characteristic is political belief?

    Anyway, Robinson must be relieved. Now he can concentrate on the ongoing legal fight over whether he is hiding any money with his insolvency that he owes in libel damages, and his trial due next year on harassment charges.
    I don't see how political belief is a protected characteristic under terrorism law, and it seems quite reasonable to treat a career violent criminal, fraudster, bankrupt driving a Bentley with suspicion.

    GB News were saying he was selected on the basis of "political belief" not something else, which I can't remember.

    Personally I think the Judge is off his rocker.
    I'm surprised Cyclefree isn't all over this after the Supreme Court ruling on the primacy of birth certificates because presumably the "protected characteristic" is that Judge has determined he's a (you're banned Ed).

    The Judge is an idiot, if a convicted criminal driving a high value car that isn't theirs across the border isn't reasonable grounds for plod to make a stop then what is?
    Equality law overrides other laws. There is also previous rulings on the protection of political belief under the Equalities Act

    see https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2009/0219_09_0311.html
    • The belief must be genuinely held.
    • It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
    • It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
    • It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
    • It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
    The issue in his case was the use of ant-terrorism law to demand the Tommy Lots of Names unlock his phone.

    If the policeman had stopped Tommy Lots of names for being in possession of someone's else's expensive car or for the large amount of cash that was in his possession, that would have been different. Those matters are still being taken forward - especially the cash issue.

    What the court was ruling, here, was that the policeman had no right to demand Tommy Lots of Names should unlock his phone just because the policeman felt that Tommy Lots Of Names was a wrong 'un. And that Tommy Lots of Names committed no crime by not unlocking his phone on demand.
    He was stopped under terrorist legislation which I pointed out at the time was preposterous and has been rightly found not guilty. Remember the courts do not find people "innocent"
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 17,198
    Nigelb said:

    From the trial of the Subway One, who threw a sandwich at one of Miller's goons.

    https://x.com/mollylroberts/status/1985732428762132840
    ...The officer Sandwich Guy is charged with assaulting testifies that he could feel the impact of the sandwich through his ballistic vest, and it “exploded all over my uniform.” He says he could “smell the onions and the mustard.”..

    ..We’re back to the sandwich video. The paper, the defense points out, is still on. “You don’t see there’s mustard on it?” “You can’t tell there’s ketchup on it?” Mayonnaise? Lettuce? Tomato? “In fact, that sandwich hasn’t exploded at all?” Witness says the sandwich “looks bent and out of shape.”..

    ..Agent Lairmore is done with his testimony. Prosecution asked further about the condiments and he said there was mustard on his uniform and an onion hanging on his radio antenna. Don’t think defense was going for a pun when she called him a “seasoned officer,” but you never know…

    That's surely the best thing anyone has ever done with a Subway product.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,306
    As I posted at the time: I note Yaxley Lennon seems to have been stopped under *checks news report* terrorism legislation.
    Despite being " no angel" as I think the common description is I don't recall him being considered a terrorist or potential terrorist by the state at any point.
    Perhaps the officers who stopped him have access to intelligence that he is. Or it might be a misuse of police powers. One or the other I suppose !
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 58,121
    Pulpstar said:

    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Tommy Ten Terms has been found innocent:

    On Tuesday, District Judge Sam Goozee found Robinson not guilty of failing to comply with the counter-terrorism powers during the incident on July 28 last year.

    Mr Goozee said: “I cannot put out of my mind that it was actually what you stood for and your political beliefs that acted for the principle reason for this stop.”

    He also said Pc Mitchell Thorogood’s decision to stop Robinson was based on a “protected characteristic”, adding: “I cannot convict you.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/04/tommy-robinson-not-guilty-terror-offence/

    I don't have a clue what the Judge means. "Protected characteristic" is the language of the Equality Act. What protected characteristic?

    There's a bit of a whiff of police cockup about this imo. If he had an illegal amount of cash on him for export undeclared, why was that not charged?

    Presumably the protected characteristic is political belief?

    Anyway, Robinson must be relieved. Now he can concentrate on the ongoing legal fight over whether he is hiding any money with his insolvency that he owes in libel damages, and his trial due next year on harassment charges.
    I don't see how political belief is a protected characteristic under terrorism law, and it seems quite reasonable to treat a career violent criminal, fraudster, bankrupt driving a Bentley with suspicion.

    GB News were saying he was selected on the basis of "political belief" not something else, which I can't remember.

    Personally I think the Judge is off his rocker.
    I'm surprised Cyclefree isn't all over this after the Supreme Court ruling on the primacy of birth certificates because presumably the "protected characteristic" is that Judge has determined he's a (you're banned Ed).

    The Judge is an idiot, if a convicted criminal driving a high value car that isn't theirs across the border isn't reasonable grounds for plod to make a stop then what is?
    Equality law overrides other laws. There is also previous rulings on the protection of political belief under the Equalities Act

    see https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2009/0219_09_0311.html
    • The belief must be genuinely held.
    • It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
    • It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
    • It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
    • It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
    The issue in his case was the use of ant-terrorism law to demand the Tommy Lots of Names unlock his phone.

    If the policeman had stopped Tommy Lots of names for being in possession of someone's else's expensive car or for the large amount of cash that was in his possession, that would have been different. Those matters are still being taken forward - especially the cash issue.

    What the court was ruling, here, was that the policeman had no right to demand Tommy Lots of Names should unlock his phone just because the policeman felt that Tommy Lots Of Names was a wrong 'un. And that Tommy Lots of Names committed no crime by not unlocking his phone on demand.
    He was stopped under terrorist legislation which I pointed out at the time was preposterous and has been rightly found not guilty. Remember the courts do not find people "innocent"
    Yup. And For the avoidance of doubt there was plenty of thing to stop Tommy Lots of Names for and multiple things to legitimately question/charge him over. The pile of cash, especially.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,509
    Very hard to know what it is about corrupt, geriatric, serial sex pest, Andrew Cuomo, that appeals to Donald Trump.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 58,121
    Pulpstar said:

    As I posted at the time: I note Yaxley Lennon seems to have been stopped under *checks news report* terrorism legislation.
    Despite being " no angel" as I think the common description is I don't recall him being considered a terrorist or potential terrorist by the state at any point.
    Perhaps the officers who stopped him have access to intelligence that he is. Or it might be a misuse of police powers. One or the other I suppose !

    The court seems to have found that it was a misuse of powers. Which is why the judge found Yaxley Lennon not guilty for refusing to unlock his phone.

    It's fairly clear that the police officer was trying to go for a quick, cheap win here. Without following the actual law.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 58,121
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I have to say that on the 'winding up the right people' metric Mamdani performs spectacularly. If that's what this election is about we are surely looking at a landslide.

    That's what lots of people said about some very bad choices in the past.
    True. He's the right choice here though.
    It's a shame that Ron can't get elected in New York.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,840
    Nigelb said:

    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    Dopermean said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It seems the country's going to be a lot quieter once all the people supposedly leaving have gone....

    We all know Reeves and Starmer should have been honest about raising income tax and perhaps VAT before the election but the shadow cast by 1992 is very long and it would have been manna from heaven for Sunak and Hunt - "Labour will raise your taxes, the Conservatives will cut them" - the social media messages write themselves.

    We also know, in the event of their re-election, Hunt would likely have raised taxes as well.

    The deficit remains eye watering - no one objects to borrowing for long term capital investment but borrowing to get from one month to the next doesn't work well for individuals or countries. The truth is even if we can bring the deficit and borrowing down we will still be saddled with the annual debt interest payments of £60-70 billion tearing a chunk out of our available expenditure.

    The priority for now must be getting the deficit down and while some of the more fanciful ideas on here about slashing civil service headcount by 50% and cutting benefits by the same amount might make some on here feel better, we all know that won't happen under a Labour, Conservative or even Reform Government.

    Raising basic rate progressively to 25p, higher rate to nearer 50p and instigating a third higher tax rate is probably where Reeves is going. I'd still be looking at Land Value Taxation or some measure relating to property valuations to replace Stamp Duty and possibly Council Tax. As a small gesture of carrot, I'd put thresholds up by 2x inflation this year and pledge to keep them in line with inflation for the rest of the Parliament.

    It looks as though online gaming and FOBTs in betting shops will face higher tax but it may be the lobbying by the horse racing and greyhound industries has done enough to stop a significant rise in betting duty. I suspect fuel duty will go up by more than inflation as well.

    The biggest problem is the entrenched belief, among the electorate, that increased taxes will simply disappear into the maw of government, without noticeable improvement.

    It's fairly clear that much of Government, local and national has lost control of costs. It's Feast-Or-Famine - either there's no money for X or theres billions spent on something that should cost millions.

    The migrant hotels farce is a prefect example of this - an avalanche of money for the owners. I don't blame them - times are tough in the hotel business. If someone is offering you a zero risk, unbelievably profitable multi-year contract, you'd be insane not to take it.

    We need to start cutting our cloth according to the.... cloth we actually have.

    I know that a British Museum catalogue without a logo, a Richard Rogeresque HQ, some abstract sculpture in the foyer and a mission statement, isn't exciting. Not to mention a "dynamic team" for the Board of Directors on 6 figures each for 2 days of work as year.

    But if we ditch those things, we might be able to afford a... British Museum catalogue.
    People also have very distorted ideas of where the money goes. Migrant hotels and the British Museum are not why public spending is high. The money goes on healthcare and pensions, both of which are going up with an ageing population.
    But you see this pattern through government - the hospitals are both falling down and built for prices that are crazy.

    My relative who runs a building business looked at the contract to build a school local to me - the price was higher, per square foot than digging luxury basements. Which is the most expensive thing to do in the construction industry. He said that he could do the job, and throw in a basement swimming pool, under the playground and still make 30%.
    I can’t understand why contract management is so bad throughout the public sector.
    It’s because “Chief contract negotiator” is a CL6 (sic) position, paying from £45,268 in year 1, to £53,826 in Year 8.

    Meanwhile, the guy on the other side is making 1% of the contract value, and attracts people who want to make £10m a year.
    Agreed. But you won’t fix that with cuts
    Oh I’d be all in favour of central government having a crack team of contract negotiators on unlimited commission based on saving public money.
    Let me at it!

    Carbon Capture Schemes? gone.

    Nuclear power projects - persuade me why they shouldn't be gone....
    Carbon capture was always a waste of money - added cost zero benefit

    Nuclear power - we shouldn’t be building big ones except the Korean design. Small modular ones we should be investing in to get the factories working so we start exporting them
    Carbon capture is a designed to mitigate the amount of CO2 that is released. If you are determined that global temps need to be kept below 'x' degrees then carbon capture might be used as part of the process, even if it is hideously expensive.
    Except that very few countries will be doing it, and the cost/benefit analysis is dreadful compared with other interventions.
    I don't disagree - it wouldn't be my choice. I'd be going hell for leather for renewables (tidal, wind, solar, battery storage, huge storage reservoirs etc).
    The one good use for carbon capture and storage would be if we used excess renewable electricity to create methane (via electrolysis and the Sabatier process) and then captured the carbon when burning that gas. You'd then have a negative carbon process to balance things like the warming from jet plane contrails.

    But we're a long way from that, and instead they're talking about using CCS for production of hydrogen from fossil methane, which is absurd.
    I'm trying to find the link - there was an interesting startup in the US that was looking at Solar -> Methane. But without battery storage or even converter electronics - just feed the power into the process from the panels. So it would run when there was power. The idea was simplicity and lower costs.....
    We also already have a lot of infrastructure for methane distribution and storage.
    Which can be repurposed for hydrogen.
    Only if you ignore the safety protocols for hydrogen.
    The town gas we had before North Sea gas came on stream was roughly half hydrogen aiui

    A comment made a few times, which ignores 3 critical factors.

    1: Half hydrogen is very different to fully hydrogen. Water is one-third hydrogen afterall.

    2: Homes were much better ventilated (read: much worse insulated) then.

    3: Many more people died then due to gas leaks etc in the home than would happen today, despite points 1 and 2.
    "Water is one-third hydrogen afterall." Lol

    I can't think of ANY interpretation of that as correct. By mass H is 2 out of 18. By number of atoms its 2 out of 3.
    Easy to come up with one - It is one third hydrogen, one third oxygen and another third hydrogen.
    Regarding dangers of hydrogen in domestic gas citing town gas
    1) Town gas was much more poisonous due to a high CO content - natural gas with added hydrogen won't have this issue
    2) Gas appliance maintenance was much worse, particularly in rental properties
    3) Most town gas related deaths were CO poisoning

    From wikipedia
    In Hong Kong, town gas is produced from naphtha and natural gas. Its major components are hydrogen (49%), methane (28.5%), carbon dioxide (19.5%) and a small amount of carbon monoxide (3%).[3]

    If domestic gas can be 49% hydrogen in Hong Kong, why couldn't it work in UK?
    At a cursory look, accidental Hong Kong carbon monoxide poisoning deaths are significantly higher than the UK by perhaps 2-3x the rate.
    But hydrogen doesn't contain CO, so diluting natural gas with hydrogen is not going to increase the CO content is it?
    I don't have an answer to that. I was just quoting rough per-pop numbers from UK and Hong Kong.

    Perhaps Town Gas is less consistent in mix?
    It was rhetorical :)
    The CO in Hong Kong's gas must come from the manufacturing process.

    AIUI proposal in UK was to dilute natural gas (negligible CO) with hydrogen (no CO) resulting in domestic gas with negligible CO - update blend with 20% Hydrogen by volume.

    The point is the UK used to use domestic gas with ~ 20% Hydrogen, this was more dangerous than natural gas but because it also contained CO, and Hong Kong currently has domestic gas with a Hydrogen content ~ 49%

    So safety concerns about blending 20 % Hydrogen with Natural Gas are overblown and could reduce CO2 emissions from domestic use by 6-7% with no modification to domestic appliances.
    What about the it's a stupidly expensive and impractical idea concerns ?
    Those may be valid but they're not the safety concerns that are normally cited to scare the public about it.
    It may well be that producing Hydrogen to blend into natural gas is not an efficient way of achieving that CO2 reduction, but it may be more politically achievable than mandating a change to heat pumps.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,997
    Pulpstar said:

    As I posted at the time: I note Yaxley Lennon seems to have been stopped under *checks news report* terrorism legislation.
    Despite being " no angel" as I think the common description is I don't recall him being considered a terrorist or potential terrorist by the state at any point.
    Perhaps the officers who stopped him have access to intelligence that he is. Or it might be a misuse of police powers. One or the other I suppose !

    There should be a wide differerence in law between an arsehole and a terrorist.

    Mr “Robinson” has a long record, but that doesn’t mean that him driving a nice car is reason by itself to stop him.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,567

    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    Dopermean said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It seems the country's going to be a lot quieter once all the people supposedly leaving have gone....

    We all know Reeves and Starmer should have been honest about raising income tax and perhaps VAT before the election but the shadow cast by 1992 is very long and it would have been manna from heaven for Sunak and Hunt - "Labour will raise your taxes, the Conservatives will cut them" - the social media messages write themselves.

    We also know, in the event of their re-election, Hunt would likely have raised taxes as well.

    The deficit remains eye watering - no one objects to borrowing for long term capital investment but borrowing to get from one month to the next doesn't work well for individuals or countries. The truth is even if we can bring the deficit and borrowing down we will still be saddled with the annual debt interest payments of £60-70 billion tearing a chunk out of our available expenditure.

    The priority for now must be getting the deficit down and while some of the more fanciful ideas on here about slashing civil service headcount by 50% and cutting benefits by the same amount might make some on here feel better, we all know that won't happen under a Labour, Conservative or even Reform Government.

    Raising basic rate progressively to 25p, higher rate to nearer 50p and instigating a third higher tax rate is probably where Reeves is going. I'd still be looking at Land Value Taxation or some measure relating to property valuations to replace Stamp Duty and possibly Council Tax. As a small gesture of carrot, I'd put thresholds up by 2x inflation this year and pledge to keep them in line with inflation for the rest of the Parliament.

    It looks as though online gaming and FOBTs in betting shops will face higher tax but it may be the lobbying by the horse racing and greyhound industries has done enough to stop a significant rise in betting duty. I suspect fuel duty will go up by more than inflation as well.

    The biggest problem is the entrenched belief, among the electorate, that increased taxes will simply disappear into the maw of government, without noticeable improvement.

    It's fairly clear that much of Government, local and national has lost control of costs. It's Feast-Or-Famine - either there's no money for X or theres billions spent on something that should cost millions.

    The migrant hotels farce is a prefect example of this - an avalanche of money for the owners. I don't blame them - times are tough in the hotel business. If someone is offering you a zero risk, unbelievably profitable multi-year contract, you'd be insane not to take it.

    We need to start cutting our cloth according to the.... cloth we actually have.

    I know that a British Museum catalogue without a logo, a Richard Rogeresque HQ, some abstract sculpture in the foyer and a mission statement, isn't exciting. Not to mention a "dynamic team" for the Board of Directors on 6 figures each for 2 days of work as year.

    But if we ditch those things, we might be able to afford a... British Museum catalogue.
    People also have very distorted ideas of where the money goes. Migrant hotels and the British Museum are not why public spending is high. The money goes on healthcare and pensions, both of which are going up with an ageing population.
    But you see this pattern through government - the hospitals are both falling down and built for prices that are crazy.

    My relative who runs a building business looked at the contract to build a school local to me - the price was higher, per square foot than digging luxury basements. Which is the most expensive thing to do in the construction industry. He said that he could do the job, and throw in a basement swimming pool, under the playground and still make 30%.
    I can’t understand why contract management is so bad throughout the public sector.
    It’s because “Chief contract negotiator” is a CL6 (sic) position, paying from £45,268 in year 1, to £53,826 in Year 8.

    Meanwhile, the guy on the other side is making 1% of the contract value, and attracts people who want to make £10m a year.
    Agreed. But you won’t fix that with cuts
    Oh I’d be all in favour of central government having a crack team of contract negotiators on unlimited commission based on saving public money.
    Let me at it!

    Carbon Capture Schemes? gone.

    Nuclear power projects - persuade me why they shouldn't be gone....
    Carbon capture was always a waste of money - added cost zero benefit

    Nuclear power - we shouldn’t be building big ones except the Korean design. Small modular ones we should be investing in to get the factories working so we start exporting them
    Carbon capture is a designed to mitigate the amount of CO2 that is released. If you are determined that global temps need to be kept below 'x' degrees then carbon capture might be used as part of the process, even if it is hideously expensive.
    Except that very few countries will be doing it, and the cost/benefit analysis is dreadful compared with other interventions.
    I don't disagree - it wouldn't be my choice. I'd be going hell for leather for renewables (tidal, wind, solar, battery storage, huge storage reservoirs etc).
    The one good use for carbon capture and storage would be if we used excess renewable electricity to create methane (via electrolysis and the Sabatier process) and then captured the carbon when burning that gas. You'd then have a negative carbon process to balance things like the warming from jet plane contrails.

    But we're a long way from that, and instead they're talking about using CCS for production of hydrogen from fossil methane, which is absurd.
    I'm trying to find the link - there was an interesting startup in the US that was looking at Solar -> Methane. But without battery storage or even converter electronics - just feed the power into the process from the panels. So it would run when there was power. The idea was simplicity and lower costs.....
    We also already have a lot of infrastructure for methane distribution and storage.
    Which can be repurposed for hydrogen.
    Only if you ignore the safety protocols for hydrogen.
    The town gas we had before North Sea gas came on stream was roughly half hydrogen aiui

    A comment made a few times, which ignores 3 critical factors.

    1: Half hydrogen is very different to fully hydrogen. Water is one-third hydrogen afterall.

    2: Homes were much better ventilated (read: much worse insulated) then.

    3: Many more people died then due to gas leaks etc in the home than would happen today, despite points 1 and 2.
    "Water is one-third hydrogen afterall." Lol

    I can't think of ANY interpretation of that as correct. By mass H is 2 out of 18. By number of atoms its 2 out of 3.
    Easy to come up with one - It is one third hydrogen, one third oxygen and another third hydrogen.
    Regarding dangers of hydrogen in domestic gas citing town gas
    1) Town gas was much more poisonous due to a high CO content - natural gas with added hydrogen won't have this issue
    2) Gas appliance maintenance was much worse, particularly in rental properties
    3) Most town gas related deaths were CO poisoning

    From wikipedia
    In Hong Kong, town gas is produced from naphtha and natural gas. Its major components are hydrogen (49%), methane (28.5%), carbon dioxide (19.5%) and a small amount of carbon monoxide (3%).[3]

    If domestic gas can be 49% hydrogen in Hong Kong, why couldn't it work in UK?
    At a cursory look, accidental Hong Kong carbon monoxide poisoning deaths are significantly higher than the UK by perhaps 2-3x the rate.
    But hydrogen doesn't contain CO, so diluting natural gas with hydrogen is not going to increase the CO content is it?
    I don't have an answer to that. I was just quoting rough per-pop numbers from UK and Hong Kong.

    Perhaps Town Gas is less consistent in mix?
    It was rhetorical :)
    The CO in Hong Kong's gas must come from the manufacturing process.

    AIUI proposal in UK was to dilute natural gas (negligible CO) with hydrogen (no CO) resulting in domestic gas with negligible CO - update blend with 20% Hydrogen by volume.

    The point is the UK used to use domestic gas with ~ 20% Hydrogen, this was more dangerous than natural gas but because it also contained CO, and Hong Kong currently has domestic gas with a Hydrogen content ~ 49%

    So safety concerns about blending 20 % Hydrogen with Natural Gas are overblown and could reduce CO2 emissions from domestic use by 6-7% with no modification to domestic appliances.
    Except that handling rules for hydrogen preclude sending it through pipe work not spec’s or tested for it.

    That’ll be fun - getting politicians to take on that risk.
    Yes, hydrogen is a tiny molecule and could escape existing gas pipes at almost any point.

    It's also a highly explosive one.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,761

    Nigelb said:

    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    Dopermean said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It seems the country's going to be a lot quieter once all the people supposedly leaving have gone....

    We all know Reeves and Starmer should have been honest about raising income tax and perhaps VAT before the election but the shadow cast by 1992 is very long and it would have been manna from heaven for Sunak and Hunt - "Labour will raise your taxes, the Conservatives will cut them" - the social media messages write themselves.

    We also know, in the event of their re-election, Hunt would likely have raised taxes as well.

    The deficit remains eye watering - no one objects to borrowing for long term capital investment but borrowing to get from one month to the next doesn't work well for individuals or countries. The truth is even if we can bring the deficit and borrowing down we will still be saddled with the annual debt interest payments of £60-70 billion tearing a chunk out of our available expenditure.

    The priority for now must be getting the deficit down and while some of the more fanciful ideas on here about slashing civil service headcount by 50% and cutting benefits by the same amount might make some on here feel better, we all know that won't happen under a Labour, Conservative or even Reform Government.

    Raising basic rate progressively to 25p, higher rate to nearer 50p and instigating a third higher tax rate is probably where Reeves is going. I'd still be looking at Land Value Taxation or some measure relating to property valuations to replace Stamp Duty and possibly Council Tax. As a small gesture of carrot, I'd put thresholds up by 2x inflation this year and pledge to keep them in line with inflation for the rest of the Parliament.

    It looks as though online gaming and FOBTs in betting shops will face higher tax but it may be the lobbying by the horse racing and greyhound industries has done enough to stop a significant rise in betting duty. I suspect fuel duty will go up by more than inflation as well.

    The biggest problem is the entrenched belief, among the electorate, that increased taxes will simply disappear into the maw of government, without noticeable improvement.

    It's fairly clear that much of Government, local and national has lost control of costs. It's Feast-Or-Famine - either there's no money for X or theres billions spent on something that should cost millions.

    The migrant hotels farce is a prefect example of this - an avalanche of money for the owners. I don't blame them - times are tough in the hotel business. If someone is offering you a zero risk, unbelievably profitable multi-year contract, you'd be insane not to take it.

    We need to start cutting our cloth according to the.... cloth we actually have.

    I know that a British Museum catalogue without a logo, a Richard Rogeresque HQ, some abstract sculpture in the foyer and a mission statement, isn't exciting. Not to mention a "dynamic team" for the Board of Directors on 6 figures each for 2 days of work as year.

    But if we ditch those things, we might be able to afford a... British Museum catalogue.
    People also have very distorted ideas of where the money goes. Migrant hotels and the British Museum are not why public spending is high. The money goes on healthcare and pensions, both of which are going up with an ageing population.
    But you see this pattern through government - the hospitals are both falling down and built for prices that are crazy.

    My relative who runs a building business looked at the contract to build a school local to me - the price was higher, per square foot than digging luxury basements. Which is the most expensive thing to do in the construction industry. He said that he could do the job, and throw in a basement swimming pool, under the playground and still make 30%.
    I can’t understand why contract management is so bad throughout the public sector.
    It’s because “Chief contract negotiator” is a CL6 (sic) position, paying from £45,268 in year 1, to £53,826 in Year 8.

    Meanwhile, the guy on the other side is making 1% of the contract value, and attracts people who want to make £10m a year.
    Agreed. But you won’t fix that with cuts
    Oh I’d be all in favour of central government having a crack team of contract negotiators on unlimited commission based on saving public money.
    Let me at it!

    Carbon Capture Schemes? gone.

    Nuclear power projects - persuade me why they shouldn't be gone....
    Carbon capture was always a waste of money - added cost zero benefit

    Nuclear power - we shouldn’t be building big ones except the Korean design. Small modular ones we should be investing in to get the factories working so we start exporting them
    Carbon capture is a designed to mitigate the amount of CO2 that is released. If you are determined that global temps need to be kept below 'x' degrees then carbon capture might be used as part of the process, even if it is hideously expensive.
    Except that very few countries will be doing it, and the cost/benefit analysis is dreadful compared with other interventions.
    I don't disagree - it wouldn't be my choice. I'd be going hell for leather for renewables (tidal, wind, solar, battery storage, huge storage reservoirs etc).
    The one good use for carbon capture and storage would be if we used excess renewable electricity to create methane (via electrolysis and the Sabatier process) and then captured the carbon when burning that gas. You'd then have a negative carbon process to balance things like the warming from jet plane contrails.

    But we're a long way from that, and instead they're talking about using CCS for production of hydrogen from fossil methane, which is absurd.
    I'm trying to find the link - there was an interesting startup in the US that was looking at Solar -> Methane. But without battery storage or even converter electronics - just feed the power into the process from the panels. So it would run when there was power. The idea was simplicity and lower costs.....
    We also already have a lot of infrastructure for methane distribution and storage.
    Which can be repurposed for hydrogen.
    Only if you ignore the safety protocols for hydrogen.
    The town gas we had before North Sea gas came on stream was roughly half hydrogen aiui

    A comment made a few times, which ignores 3 critical factors.

    1: Half hydrogen is very different to fully hydrogen. Water is one-third hydrogen afterall.

    2: Homes were much better ventilated (read: much worse insulated) then.

    3: Many more people died then due to gas leaks etc in the home than would happen today, despite points 1 and 2.
    "Water is one-third hydrogen afterall." Lol

    I can't think of ANY interpretation of that as correct. By mass H is 2 out of 18. By number of atoms its 2 out of 3.
    Easy to come up with one - It is one third hydrogen, one third oxygen and another third hydrogen.
    Regarding dangers of hydrogen in domestic gas citing town gas
    1) Town gas was much more poisonous due to a high CO content - natural gas with added hydrogen won't have this issue
    2) Gas appliance maintenance was much worse, particularly in rental properties
    3) Most town gas related deaths were CO poisoning

    From wikipedia
    In Hong Kong, town gas is produced from naphtha and natural gas. Its major components are hydrogen (49%), methane (28.5%), carbon dioxide (19.5%) and a small amount of carbon monoxide (3%).[3]

    If domestic gas can be 49% hydrogen in Hong Kong, why couldn't it work in UK?
    At a cursory look, accidental Hong Kong carbon monoxide poisoning deaths are significantly higher than the UK by perhaps 2-3x the rate.
    But hydrogen doesn't contain CO, so diluting natural gas with hydrogen is not going to increase the CO content is it?
    I don't have an answer to that. I was just quoting rough per-pop numbers from UK and Hong Kong.

    Perhaps Town Gas is less consistent in mix?
    It was rhetorical :)
    The CO in Hong Kong's gas must come from the manufacturing process.

    AIUI proposal in UK was to dilute natural gas (negligible CO) with hydrogen (no CO) resulting in domestic gas with negligible CO - update blend with 20% Hydrogen by volume.

    The point is the UK used to use domestic gas with ~ 20% Hydrogen, this was more dangerous than natural gas but because it also contained CO, and Hong Kong currently has domestic gas with a Hydrogen content ~ 49%

    So safety concerns about blending 20 % Hydrogen with Natural Gas are overblown and could reduce CO2 emissions from domestic use by 6-7% with no modification to domestic appliances.
    What about the it's a stupidly expensive and impractical idea concerns ?
    A favourite - the gas engineer I employed to last service the boiler had done a Hydrogen certification. Theory only. The facility he went to had assessed actually using hydrogen for the course as too dangerous - they needed to rebuild the place to match hydrogen handling rules. And hadn't got the funds for that, yet.
    Gas technician.

    Not a chartered member of IGEM.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,761
    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Conservatives call for airport style security at entry to all barber shops.


    (OK, I made that up.)

    Sorry to come in with a barb but this is not the finest example of your razor sharp wit.
    Cutting.
    Presumably, Labour would put the scanners at the exit of the barber's. Not the entrance.
    Well you'd catch anyone stealing scissors.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,840
    Dopermean said:

    Nigelb said:

    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    Dopermean said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It seems the country's going to be a lot quieter once all the people supposedly leaving have gone....

    We all know Reeves and Starmer should have been honest about raising income tax and perhaps VAT before the election but the shadow cast by 1992 is very long and it would have been manna from heaven for Sunak and Hunt - "Labour will raise your taxes, the Conservatives will cut them" - the social media messages write themselves.

    We also know, in the event of their re-election, Hunt would likely have raised taxes as well.

    The deficit remains eye watering - no one objects to borrowing for long term capital investment but borrowing to get from one month to the next doesn't work well for individuals or countries. The truth is even if we can bring the deficit and borrowing down we will still be saddled with the annual debt interest payments of £60-70 billion tearing a chunk out of our available expenditure.

    The priority for now must be getting the deficit down and while some of the more fanciful ideas on here about slashing civil service headcount by 50% and cutting benefits by the same amount might make some on here feel better, we all know that won't happen under a Labour, Conservative or even Reform Government.

    Raising basic rate progressively to 25p, higher rate to nearer 50p and instigating a third higher tax rate is probably where Reeves is going. I'd still be looking at Land Value Taxation or some measure relating to property valuations to replace Stamp Duty and possibly Council Tax. As a small gesture of carrot, I'd put thresholds up by 2x inflation this year and pledge to keep them in line with inflation for the rest of the Parliament.

    It looks as though online gaming and FOBTs in betting shops will face higher tax but it may be the lobbying by the horse racing and greyhound industries has done enough to stop a significant rise in betting duty. I suspect fuel duty will go up by more than inflation as well.

    The biggest problem is the entrenched belief, among the electorate, that increased taxes will simply disappear into the maw of government, without noticeable improvement.

    It's fairly clear that much of Government, local and national has lost control of costs. It's Feast-Or-Famine - either there's no money for X or theres billions spent on something that should cost millions.

    The migrant hotels farce is a prefect example of this - an avalanche of money for the owners. I don't blame them - times are tough in the hotel business. If someone is offering you a zero risk, unbelievably profitable multi-year contract, you'd be insane not to take it.

    We need to start cutting our cloth according to the.... cloth we actually have.

    I know that a British Museum catalogue without a logo, a Richard Rogeresque HQ, some abstract sculpture in the foyer and a mission statement, isn't exciting. Not to mention a "dynamic team" for the Board of Directors on 6 figures each for 2 days of work as year.

    But if we ditch those things, we might be able to afford a... British Museum catalogue.
    People also have very distorted ideas of where the money goes. Migrant hotels and the British Museum are not why public spending is high. The money goes on healthcare and pensions, both of which are going up with an ageing population.
    But you see this pattern through government - the hospitals are both falling down and built for prices that are crazy.

    My relative who runs a building business looked at the contract to build a school local to me - the price was higher, per square foot than digging luxury basements. Which is the most expensive thing to do in the construction industry. He said that he could do the job, and throw in a basement swimming pool, under the playground and still make 30%.
    I can’t understand why contract management is so bad throughout the public sector.
    It’s because “Chief contract negotiator” is a CL6 (sic) position, paying from £45,268 in year 1, to £53,826 in Year 8.

    Meanwhile, the guy on the other side is making 1% of the contract value, and attracts people who want to make £10m a year.
    Agreed. But you won’t fix that with cuts
    Oh I’d be all in favour of central government having a crack team of contract negotiators on unlimited commission based on saving public money.
    Let me at it!

    Carbon Capture Schemes? gone.

    Nuclear power projects - persuade me why they shouldn't be gone....
    Carbon capture was always a waste of money - added cost zero benefit

    Nuclear power - we shouldn’t be building big ones except the Korean design. Small modular ones we should be investing in to get the factories working so we start exporting them
    Carbon capture is a designed to mitigate the amount of CO2 that is released. If you are determined that global temps need to be kept below 'x' degrees then carbon capture might be used as part of the process, even if it is hideously expensive.
    Except that very few countries will be doing it, and the cost/benefit analysis is dreadful compared with other interventions.
    I don't disagree - it wouldn't be my choice. I'd be going hell for leather for renewables (tidal, wind, solar, battery storage, huge storage reservoirs etc).
    The one good use for carbon capture and storage would be if we used excess renewable electricity to create methane (via electrolysis and the Sabatier process) and then captured the carbon when burning that gas. You'd then have a negative carbon process to balance things like the warming from jet plane contrails.

    But we're a long way from that, and instead they're talking about using CCS for production of hydrogen from fossil methane, which is absurd.
    I'm trying to find the link - there was an interesting startup in the US that was looking at Solar -> Methane. But without battery storage or even converter electronics - just feed the power into the process from the panels. So it would run when there was power. The idea was simplicity and lower costs.....
    We also already have a lot of infrastructure for methane distribution and storage.
    Which can be repurposed for hydrogen.
    Only if you ignore the safety protocols for hydrogen.
    The town gas we had before North Sea gas came on stream was roughly half hydrogen aiui

    A comment made a few times, which ignores 3 critical factors.

    1: Half hydrogen is very different to fully hydrogen. Water is one-third hydrogen afterall.

    2: Homes were much better ventilated (read: much worse insulated) then.

    3: Many more people died then due to gas leaks etc in the home than would happen today, despite points 1 and 2.
    "Water is one-third hydrogen afterall." Lol

    I can't think of ANY interpretation of that as correct. By mass H is 2 out of 18. By number of atoms its 2 out of 3.
    Easy to come up with one - It is one third hydrogen, one third oxygen and another third hydrogen.
    Regarding dangers of hydrogen in domestic gas citing town gas
    1) Town gas was much more poisonous due to a high CO content - natural gas with added hydrogen won't have this issue
    2) Gas appliance maintenance was much worse, particularly in rental properties
    3) Most town gas related deaths were CO poisoning

    From wikipedia
    In Hong Kong, town gas is produced from naphtha and natural gas. Its major components are hydrogen (49%), methane (28.5%), carbon dioxide (19.5%) and a small amount of carbon monoxide (3%).[3]

    If domestic gas can be 49% hydrogen in Hong Kong, why couldn't it work in UK?
    At a cursory look, accidental Hong Kong carbon monoxide poisoning deaths are significantly higher than the UK by perhaps 2-3x the rate.
    But hydrogen doesn't contain CO, so diluting natural gas with hydrogen is not going to increase the CO content is it?
    I don't have an answer to that. I was just quoting rough per-pop numbers from UK and Hong Kong.

    Perhaps Town Gas is less consistent in mix?
    It was rhetorical :)
    The CO in Hong Kong's gas must come from the manufacturing process.

    AIUI proposal in UK was to dilute natural gas (negligible CO) with hydrogen (no CO) resulting in domestic gas with negligible CO - update blend with 20% Hydrogen by volume.

    The point is the UK used to use domestic gas with ~ 20% Hydrogen, this was more dangerous than natural gas but because it also contained CO, and Hong Kong currently has domestic gas with a Hydrogen content ~ 49%

    So safety concerns about blending 20 % Hydrogen with Natural Gas are overblown and could reduce CO2 emissions from domestic use by 6-7% with no modification to domestic appliances.
    What about the it's a stupidly expensive and impractical idea concerns ?
    Those may be valid but they're not the safety concerns that are normally cited to scare the public about it.
    It may well be that producing Hydrogen to blend into natural gas is not an efficient way of achieving that CO2 reduction, but it may be more politically achievable than mandating a change to heat pumps.
    In fact it is, the UK govt can just do this and it will be done. It does not matter a jot that it is not the best solution because it can be achieved.

    It requires no adjustment by the public, no incentive scheme to get people to buy heat pumps, and if required insulate their houses & replace their radiators, when they don't want to, so it doesn't happen.

    It would be like unleaded petrol, a bit of grumbling, but it's done.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,651

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Conservatives call for airport style security at entry to all barber shops.


    (OK, I made that up.)

    Sorry to come in with a barb but this is not the finest example of your razor sharp wit.
    Cutting.
    Presumably, Labour would put the scanners at the exit of the barber's. Not the entrance.
    Well you'd catch anyone stealing scissors.
    It would be too late to stop the dyeing though.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,761

    Conservatives call for airport style security at entry to all barber shops.


    (OK, I made that up.)

    Sorry to come in with a barb but this is not the finest example of your razor sharp wit.
    I'm in a strop now.
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,945
    You’ll be amazed at who’s behind the singer !!!!

    https://x.com/cezthesocialist/status/1985717388361547918?s=61
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,332
    Taz said:

    You’ll be amazed at who’s behind the singer !!!!

    https://x.com/cezthesocialist/status/1985717388361547918?s=61

    We need a total and complete shutdown of Mamdani clones until we can figure out what the hell is going on.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 21,008

    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    Dopermean said:

    MattW said:

    Dopermean said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It seems the country's going to be a lot quieter once all the people supposedly leaving have gone....

    We all know Reeves and Starmer should have been honest about raising income tax and perhaps VAT before the election but the shadow cast by 1992 is very long and it would have been manna from heaven for Sunak and Hunt - "Labour will raise your taxes, the Conservatives will cut them" - the social media messages write themselves.

    We also know, in the event of their re-election, Hunt would likely have raised taxes as well.

    The deficit remains eye watering - no one objects to borrowing for long term capital investment but borrowing to get from one month to the next doesn't work well for individuals or countries. The truth is even if we can bring the deficit and borrowing down we will still be saddled with the annual debt interest payments of £60-70 billion tearing a chunk out of our available expenditure.

    The priority for now must be getting the deficit down and while some of the more fanciful ideas on here about slashing civil service headcount by 50% and cutting benefits by the same amount might make some on here feel better, we all know that won't happen under a Labour, Conservative or even Reform Government.

    Raising basic rate progressively to 25p, higher rate to nearer 50p and instigating a third higher tax rate is probably where Reeves is going. I'd still be looking at Land Value Taxation or some measure relating to property valuations to replace Stamp Duty and possibly Council Tax. As a small gesture of carrot, I'd put thresholds up by 2x inflation this year and pledge to keep them in line with inflation for the rest of the Parliament.

    It looks as though online gaming and FOBTs in betting shops will face higher tax but it may be the lobbying by the horse racing and greyhound industries has done enough to stop a significant rise in betting duty. I suspect fuel duty will go up by more than inflation as well.

    The biggest problem is the entrenched belief, among the electorate, that increased taxes will simply disappear into the maw of government, without noticeable improvement.

    It's fairly clear that much of Government, local and national has lost control of costs. It's Feast-Or-Famine - either there's no money for X or theres billions spent on something that should cost millions.

    The migrant hotels farce is a prefect example of this - an avalanche of money for the owners. I don't blame them - times are tough in the hotel business. If someone is offering you a zero risk, unbelievably profitable multi-year contract, you'd be insane not to take it.

    We need to start cutting our cloth according to the.... cloth we actually have.

    I know that a British Museum catalogue without a logo, a Richard Rogeresque HQ, some abstract sculpture in the foyer and a mission statement, isn't exciting. Not to mention a "dynamic team" for the Board of Directors on 6 figures each for 2 days of work as year.

    But if we ditch those things, we might be able to afford a... British Museum catalogue.
    People also have very distorted ideas of where the money goes. Migrant hotels and the British Museum are not why public spending is high. The money goes on healthcare and pensions, both of which are going up with an ageing population.
    But you see this pattern through government - the hospitals are both falling down and built for prices that are crazy.

    My relative who runs a building business looked at the contract to build a school local to me - the price was higher, per square foot than digging luxury basements. Which is the most expensive thing to do in the construction industry. He said that he could do the job, and throw in a basement swimming pool, under the playground and still make 30%.
    I can’t understand why contract management is so bad throughout the public sector.
    It’s because “Chief contract negotiator” is a CL6 (sic) position, paying from £45,268 in year 1, to £53,826 in Year 8.

    Meanwhile, the guy on the other side is making 1% of the contract value, and attracts people who want to make £10m a year.
    Agreed. But you won’t fix that with cuts
    Oh I’d be all in favour of central government having a crack team of contract negotiators on unlimited commission based on saving public money.
    Let me at it!

    Carbon Capture Schemes? gone.

    Nuclear power projects - persuade me why they shouldn't be gone....
    Carbon capture was always a waste of money - added cost zero benefit

    Nuclear power - we shouldn’t be building big ones except the Korean design. Small modular ones we should be investing in to get the factories working so we start exporting them
    Carbon capture is a designed to mitigate the amount of CO2 that is released. If you are determined that global temps need to be kept below 'x' degrees then carbon capture might be used as part of the process, even if it is hideously expensive.
    Except that very few countries will be doing it, and the cost/benefit analysis is dreadful compared with other interventions.
    I don't disagree - it wouldn't be my choice. I'd be going hell for leather for renewables (tidal, wind, solar, battery storage, huge storage reservoirs etc).
    The one good use for carbon capture and storage would be if we used excess renewable electricity to create methane (via electrolysis and the Sabatier process) and then captured the carbon when burning that gas. You'd then have a negative carbon process to balance things like the warming from jet plane contrails.

    But we're a long way from that, and instead they're talking about using CCS for production of hydrogen from fossil methane, which is absurd.
    I'm trying to find the link - there was an interesting startup in the US that was looking at Solar -> Methane. But without battery storage or even converter electronics - just feed the power into the process from the panels. So it would run when there was power. The idea was simplicity and lower costs.....
    We also already have a lot of infrastructure for methane distribution and storage.
    Which can be repurposed for hydrogen.
    Only if you ignore the safety protocols for hydrogen.
    The town gas we had before North Sea gas came on stream was roughly half hydrogen aiui

    A comment made a few times, which ignores 3 critical factors.

    1: Half hydrogen is very different to fully hydrogen. Water is one-third hydrogen afterall.

    2: Homes were much better ventilated (read: much worse insulated) then.

    3: Many more people died then due to gas leaks etc in the home than would happen today, despite points 1 and 2.
    "Water is one-third hydrogen afterall." Lol

    I can't think of ANY interpretation of that as correct. By mass H is 2 out of 18. By number of atoms its 2 out of 3.
    Easy to come up with one - It is one third hydrogen, one third oxygen and another third hydrogen.
    Regarding dangers of hydrogen in domestic gas citing town gas
    1) Town gas was much more poisonous due to a high CO content - natural gas with added hydrogen won't have this issue
    2) Gas appliance maintenance was much worse, particularly in rental properties
    3) Most town gas related deaths were CO poisoning

    From wikipedia
    In Hong Kong, town gas is produced from naphtha and natural gas. Its major components are hydrogen (49%), methane (28.5%), carbon dioxide (19.5%) and a small amount of carbon monoxide (3%).[3]

    If domestic gas can be 49% hydrogen in Hong Kong, why couldn't it work in UK?
    At a cursory look, accidental Hong Kong carbon monoxide poisoning deaths are significantly higher than the UK by perhaps 2-3x the rate.
    But hydrogen doesn't contain CO, so diluting natural gas with hydrogen is not going to increase the CO content is it?
    I don't have an answer to that. I was just quoting rough per-pop numbers from UK and Hong Kong.

    Perhaps Town Gas is less consistent in mix?
    It was rhetorical :)
    The CO in Hong Kong's gas must come from the manufacturing process.

    AIUI proposal in UK was to dilute natural gas (negligible CO) with hydrogen (no CO) resulting in domestic gas with negligible CO - update blend with 20% Hydrogen by volume.

    The point is the UK used to use domestic gas with ~ 20% Hydrogen, this was more dangerous than natural gas but because it also contained CO, and Hong Kong currently has domestic gas with a Hydrogen content ~ 49%

    So safety concerns about blending 20 % Hydrogen with Natural Gas are overblown and could reduce CO2 emissions from domestic use by 6-7% with no modification to domestic appliances.
    People die fr9m CO poisoning as a result of incomplete combustion of methane in faulty appliances. If we switch to 100% hydrogen, this is not possible.

    Safety studies have shown that the increased risk associated with leakage of hydrogen is compensated by the elimination of the CO poisoning risk.
    Not CO poisoning but I’d be worrying about flooding…
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 7,629
    eek said:

    Taz said:

    There’s always a tweet pt 94

    ‘ I didn't come into politics to raise taxes on working people. Labour will not put up your income tax, national insurance or VAT.

    The Conservatives are the party of high tax.’


    https://x.com/rachelreevesmp/status/1798093675471200748?s=61

    She was a f***ing idiot trying to get elected.

    It was obvious that tax increases were required back in 2024 - so I'm not going to give her any sympathy...

    Even then she's been beyond useless...
    It's a rerun of 1997 "following Conservative spending plans". Too scared, even though the landslide was coming.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,870

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Conservatives call for airport style security at entry to all barber shops.


    (OK, I made that up.)

    Sorry to come in with a barb but this is not the finest example of your razor sharp wit.
    Cutting.
    Presumably, Labour would put the scanners at the exit of the barber's. Not the entrance.
    Well you'd catch anyone stealing scissors.
    It would be too late to stop the dyeing though.
    It wouldn't even prevent close shaves.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,870
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As I posted at the time: I note Yaxley Lennon seems to have been stopped under *checks news report* terrorism legislation.
    Despite being " no angel" as I think the common description is I don't recall him being considered a terrorist or potential terrorist by the state at any point.
    Perhaps the officers who stopped him have access to intelligence that he is. Or it might be a misuse of police powers. One or the other I suppose !

    There should be a wide differerence in law between an arsehole and a terrorist.

    What if they're one and the same, though ?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,083
    Kemi's speech very good.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 26,395
    MaxPB said:

    Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.

    That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.

    It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.

    That would be a very sensible plan.

    So Reeves won't do it.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,083

    MaxPB said:

    Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.

    That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.

    It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.

    That would be a very sensible plan.

    So Reeves won't do it.
    It would not be a sensible plan. It would be a sensible way to raise taxes, if raising taxes is the desired outcome. A really sensible plan would not raise the tax burden.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,757
    MaxPB said:

    Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.

    That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.

    It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.

    Scotland is a serious complication in this. The Fraser Allander Institute has pointed out that increasing IT by 2p and cutting NI by the same amount would cost the Scottish government about £1bn a year: https://fraserofallander.org/budget-preview-1-what-might-income-tax-changes-by-the-uk-government-mean-for-scotland/

    This bizarre outcome arises because a part of the formula for computing the Scottish budget is a deduction for the forgone UK tax revenue for the part that makes up the Scottish budget. If IT is increased the deduction for foregone revenue also increases.

    £1bn is a lot in the context of the Scottish budget. Unless some offsetting provision is made I don't see how this could be brought into effect.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 16,768
    If these various MAGA endorsements have an impact, they would have had more impact a week ago. Lots of people voting won't have seen them.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,519
    Evening all :)

    I see YouGov continues on its merry way in terms of polling. Labour back up three suggesting last week's 17% was an outlier and the Greens, Conservatives and LDs in a statistical tie for third place.

    On the YouGov numbers (via Baxter which is increasingly meaningless), Reform would scrape a tiny majority but at the moment Farage benefits from a divided opposition in extremis. Whether that remains the case is uncertain - I suspect the Budget won't be the political event many on here suspect - indeed @MaxPB may be extremely prescient about the contents.

    I do think fuel duty will rise as will remote gaming duty though I suspect horse racing has done enough to keep general betting duty unchanged. The bookmakers are complaining even changing the duty on the slot machines will klead to shop closures, job losses and the like but, as someone famously said in an entirely different context, they would say that, wouldn't they?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 26,395

    MaxPB said:

    Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.

    That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.

    It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.

    That would be a very sensible plan.

    So Reeves won't do it.
    It would not be a sensible plan. It would be a sensible way to raise taxes, if raising taxes is the desired outcome. A really sensible plan would not raise the tax burden.
    Raising taxes is their desired outcome, so it is a sensible plan.

    A really sensible plan would be to not raise the tax burden, and to still do what Max said anyway, but use the rebalancing of taxation to cut other taxes so it remains revenue neutral.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,288
    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.

    That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.

    It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.

    Scotland is a serious complication in this. The Fraser Allander Institute has pointed out that increasing IT by 2p and cutting NI by the same amount would cost the Scottish government about £1bn a year: https://fraserofallander.org/budget-preview-1-what-might-income-tax-changes-by-the-uk-government-mean-for-scotland/

    This bizarre outcome arises because a part of the formula for computing the Scottish budget is a deduction for the forgone UK tax revenue for the part that makes up the Scottish budget. If IT is increased the deduction for foregone revenue also increases.

    £1bn is a lot in the context of the Scottish budget. Unless some offsetting provision is made I don't see how this could be brought into effect.
    Excellent point. Perhaps Wales too? But IANAE here.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 68,683
    Scumbag out to 16.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,734
    Ok, the icing on the Trump, Elon and Miller anti-commie cake.
    ‘Dr’ Naomi Wolf is shitposting against Mamdani in amongst her relentless batshittery about chemtrails and vaccination deaths. Cuomo surely a shoo-in now.
  • eekeek Posts: 31,802

    MaxPB said:

    Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.

    That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.

    It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.

    That would be a very sensible plan.

    So Reeves won't do it.
    It would not be a sensible plan. It would be a sensible way to raise taxes, if raising taxes is the desired outcome. A really sensible plan would not raise the tax burden.
    Raising taxes is their desired outcome, so it is a sensible plan.

    A really sensible plan would be to not raise the tax burden, and to still do what Max said anyway, but use the rebalancing of taxation to cut other taxes so it remains revenue neutral.
    Except there is a whopping large deficit between Government revenue and spending - and that deficit needs to be reduced...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,757

    MaxPB said:

    Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.

    That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.

    It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.

    That would be a very sensible plan.

    So Reeves won't do it.
    It would not be a sensible plan. It would be a sensible way to raise taxes, if raising taxes is the desired outcome. A really sensible plan would not raise the tax burden.
    Raising taxes is their desired outcome, so it is a sensible plan.

    A really sensible plan would be to not raise the tax burden, and to still do what Max said anyway, but use the rebalancing of taxation to cut other taxes so it remains revenue neutral.
    Unfortunately we need to raise taxes because we are overspending by seriously dangerous amounts and this government, despite its large majority, has proven incapable of controlling or reducing public spending. I completely agree with @Luckyguy1983 that this will have negative economic consequences but so will simply chucking yet more spending on the children's credit card.
  • TresTres Posts: 3,175
    Who cares about what Mamdani says, it all about owning the MAGA (am I doing this right?)
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 26,395
    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.

    That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.

    It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.

    Scotland is a serious complication in this. The Fraser Allander Institute has pointed out that increasing IT by 2p and cutting NI by the same amount would cost the Scottish government about £1bn a year: https://fraserofallander.org/budget-preview-1-what-might-income-tax-changes-by-the-uk-government-mean-for-scotland/

    This bizarre outcome arises because a part of the formula for computing the Scottish budget is a deduction for the forgone UK tax revenue for the part that makes up the Scottish budget. If IT is increased the deduction for foregone revenue also increases.

    £1bn is a lot in the context of the Scottish budget. Unless some offsetting provision is made I don't see how this could be brought into effect.
    I see how it could be brought into effect: 🎻
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,706
    MaxPB said:

    Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.

    That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.

    It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.

    It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,560
    MaxPB said:

    Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.

    That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.

    It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.

    Agreed completely

    While they're at it (changing tax bands) I hope they scrap the personal allowance cliff edge at £100k and bring down the new 47% tax band to start at £100k.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,521
    I'm trying "Prime Vision" on the Liverpool game. Is it any good?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 68,683
    Face leopards latest...



    Heritage Foundation in revolt over Tucker Carlson defense after controversial Nick Fuentes interview: ‘Footsie with literal Nazis’

    https://nypost.com/2025/11/03/us-news/heritage-foundation-in-revolt-over-tucker-carlson-defense-after-controversial-nick-fuentes-interview-footsie-with-literal-nazis/
  • eekeek Posts: 31,802

    MaxPB said:

    Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.

    That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.

    It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.

    It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
    I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%

    But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,764

    Face leopards latest...



    Heritage Foundation in revolt over Tucker Carlson defense after controversial Nick Fuentes interview: ‘Footsie with literal Nazis’

    https://nypost.com/2025/11/03/us-news/heritage-foundation-in-revolt-over-tucker-carlson-defense-after-controversial-nick-fuentes-interview-footsie-with-literal-nazis/

    https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/1985448630036128202
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,263
    I think most Republicans in NYC will vote for Silwa, if you are a Republican in New York you are a REALLY committed Republican. Even if they dislike Mamdani's views they will dislike Cuomo's character and unlike Musk and Trump are unlikely to be ex Democrats either.

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 17,198
    On Mamdani I am kind of 20% he's too left wing and a lot of his ideas like rent controls won't work and 80% at least he's showing some fight against Trump and the vile billionaire class, and the left need someone with charisma and a hopeful message and fresh ideas because bland centrism sure as hell isn't working for them.
Sign In or Register to comment.