I suspect if Suella Braverman defected to Reform and Liz Truss then followed her, Kemi would not be too displeased
Reform have got a real problem here.
One one hand they see themselves as the successor to the Conservative Party. So why not bring over the old guard.
On the other hand they are trying to do something the Tories couldn't do even at the height of their Boris pomp. Being stuffed full of Tories doesn't help.
So here is the basic question - does welcoming Braverman or Truss or Mogg help them or hinder them? I think the latter. And frankly Dorries was a mistake as well.
Good morning
All parties have problems and nobody has the answer because they know if they tell the truth that we are massively overspending, borrowing and taxing the public won't wear the remedy
I noticed on Sky this morning their poll has the Lib Dems in 5th place !!!!
Yet that would still win them far more seats than the Conservatives.
Suella's greatest crime seems to have been being right.
She's a nasty woman, her homelessness is a lifestyle choice comments were vile, given the number of people with mental health/ex military people who are homeless, very few people choose to be homeless. I know somebody who was made homeless through no fault of her own, her partner had got himself into debt, and they banks/lender repossessed the property, she was 'lucky' because her family and friends stepped up, not everybody has that support system.
I told Boris Johnson that one of his proudest achievements as PM was to end rough sleeping at the start of the pandemic, one of his biggest failures was to ensure rough sleeping was a thing of the past.
A couple of points
- ex-military rough sleepers. A couple of years ago, a military charity, working with the military did a survey. What they found was - of the genuine ex-military, something like 95%+ among rough sleepers had been let go during *training*. For having suspected mental health issues. That’s interesting because that suggests an opportunity to help earlier.
- simply stuffing rough sleepers into hotels etc does very little. The issues that lead to people sleeping in cardboard boxes are not easy to solve
- the bigger problem is homelessness. Which isn’t rough sleeping. But not having a permanent home - see rooms in shitty “B&Bs” paid for by the council.
It’s almost as if a significant part of the problem can be fixed by allowing a lot more houses to be built.
'The culture secretary has apologised for breaking rules by failing to declare she had received donations from the man she picked to be England's new football regulator.
On Thursday, the commissioner for public appointments published a report, external which found that David Kogan had made two separate donations of £1,450 to Lisa Nandy, when she was running to be Labour leader in 2020.
Speaking to the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Nandy said: "We didn't meet the highest standards - that is on me."
The Conservatives have said Nandy's actions were "a serious breach of public trust" and called for a further investigation into Sir Keir Starmer, who also received donations from Mr Kogan.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqjwp0rq7d7o
Suella's greatest crime seems to have been being right.
She's a nasty woman, her homelessness is a lifestyle choice comments were vile, given the number of people with mental health/ex military people who are homeless, very few people choose to be homeless. I know somebody who was made homeless through no fault of her own, her partner had got himself into debt, and they banks/lender repossessed the property, she was 'lucky' because her family and friends stepped up, not everybody has that support system.
I told Boris Johnson that one of his proudest achievements as PM was to end rough sleeping at the start of the pandemic, one of his biggest failures was to ensure rough sleeping was a thing of the past.
A couple of points
- ex-military rough sleepers. A couple of years ago, a military charity, working with the military did a survey. What they found was - of the genuine ex-military, something like 95%+ among rough sleepers had been let go during *training*. For having suspected mental health issues. That’s interesting because that suggests an opportunity to help earlier.
- simply stuffing rough sleepers into hotels etc does very little. The issues that lead to people sleeping in cardboard boxes are not easy to solve
- the bigger problem is homelessness. Which isn’t rough sleeping. But not having a permanent home - see rooms in shitty “B&Bs” paid for by the council.
In the bi-weekly Facetime with the mother-in-law in New Zealand, we were told Christopher Luxon's latest idea is to get all the rough sleepers out of the central business district of Auckland.
Don't imagine for a nanosecond New Zealand doesn't have all the same problems as everywhere else - homelessness is a big issue even in smallish places like Napier and Hamilton let alone Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.
From what little I know of the homeless, a lot of the problems stem from mental health and addiction and these need time as much as money to be overcome. The homeless are an extreme end of what I think is a much larger problem of dependency and mental health issues which affect, I'd imagine, hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in the UK.
I also don't want to ignore those who are fleeing sexual and physical abuse and have to escape for fear of their lives even if that means ending up on the streets.
The Coalition, to its credit, did some good work on mental health and we know one of the side effects of the pandemic was a surge in the nunbers reporting mental health problems yet unfortunately there's all too often a traditional cynicism if not outright hostility to those with such issues (we see it from a few on here).
Simply moving all the homeless somewhere else because you don't want them to make the place look ugly is pathetic and a sign of political failure.
Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:
The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.
Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.
Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.
The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.
I'm sure it's a total coincidence, but Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were known for their charisma.
The difference I think is that Reagan, GW Bush and Trump were explicitly chosen for their charisma, in order to get the GOP elected in order to enact policies favouring the cynical hard men, the dark forces controlling the party.
Our closest analogy might be Tony Blair, at least insofar as the left saw his centrist views as a price worth paying to return to power. Maybe Cameron at a pinch.
I'm slightly struggling with Dubya Bush as a charisma focus - but my perception maybe skewed by UK reporting. I'm aware that he was good in his daily habits, and working sensible hours and so ... but charisma ?
To me, the Dubya stereotype is quite like Marlon in the Truman Show - the friend who keeps appearing with a crate of beer.
Suella's greatest crime seems to have been being right.
She's a nasty woman, her homelessness is a lifestyle choice comments were vile, given the number of people with mental health/ex military people who are homeless, very few people choose to be homeless. I know somebody who was made homeless through no fault of her own, her partner had got himself into debt, and they banks/lender repossessed the property, she was 'lucky' because her family and friends stepped up, not everybody has that support system.
I told Boris Johnson that one of his proudest achievements as PM was to end rough sleeping at the start of the pandemic, one of his biggest failures was to ensure rough sleeping was a thing of the past.
A couple of points
- ex-military rough sleepers. A couple of years ago, a military charity, working with the military did a survey. What they found was - of the genuine ex-military, something like 95%+ among rough sleepers had been let go during *training*. For having suspected mental health issues. That’s interesting because that suggests an opportunity to help earlier.
- simply stuffing rough sleepers into hotels etc does very little. The issues that lead to people sleeping in cardboard boxes are not easy to solve
- the bigger problem is homelessness. Which isn’t rough sleeping. But not having a permanent home - see rooms in shitty “B&Bs” paid for by the council.
It’s almost as if a significant part of the problem can be fixed by allowing a lot more houses to be built.
Fine but the homeless generally can't afford the £600k for a new flat near West Ham station or even rent a small place at Fresh Wharf. IF you are going to build for the homeless and that's not always the solution, then make the homes available for nothing and if that means a developer has to take a haircut, so be it.
The developer builds the property and gives (not sells) the dwelling to the local council - perhaps 10% of all new builds could be free social housing for the homeless.
Let's see the developers step up and do their bit - perhaps we could offer some form of tax relief as a carrot.
Zack Polanski on the balcony overlooking the Cenotaph for the first time GB news just shown, beside Sir Philip May. As he doesn't lead a party with more than 6 MPs like Farage for now he has to watch from a balcony, while Starmer, Badenoch, Davey, Flynn and Gavin Robinson lay wreaths
Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:
The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.
Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.
Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.
The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.
I'm sure it's a total coincidence, but Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were known for their charisma.
The difference I think is that Reagan, GW Bush and Trump were explicitly chosen for their charisma, in order to get the GOP elected in order to enact policies favouring the cynical hard men, the dark forces controlling the party.
Our closest analogy might be Tony Blair, at least insofar as the left saw his centrist views as a price worth paying to return to power. Maybe Cameron at a pinch.
I'm slightly struggling with Dubya Bush as a charisma focus - but my perception maybe skewed by UK reporting. I'm aware that he was good in his daily habits, and working sensible hours and so ... but charisma ?
To me, the Dubya stereotype is quite like Marlon in the Truman Show - the friend who keeps appearing with a crate of beer.
Dubya was certainly more charismatic than Gore or Kerry
And his own brother, who everyone assumed was the heir apparent.
Yes even his own parents seemed more upset that Jeb lost the Florida governor's race in 1994 than that Dubya won Texas as they expected the more intelligent Jeb to succeed his father George HW Bush as a future President. Dubya though was more charismatic and more ruthless than his brother and also won 2 presidential elections while his father won one and lost one, though George HW Bush was certainly more competent than his son
I suspect if Suella Braverman defected to Reform and Liz Truss then followed her, Kemi would not be too displeased
Reform have got a real problem here.
One one hand they see themselves as the successor to the Conservative Party. So why not bring over the old guard.
On the other hand they are trying to do something the Tories couldn't do even at the height of their Boris pomp. Being stuffed full of Tories doesn't help.
So here is the basic question - does welcoming Braverman or Truss or Mogg help them or hinder them? I think the latter. And frankly Dorries was a mistake as well.
What’s the upside for Reform in taking Braverman if she was to defect. I cannot see any.
She’s a decidedly mediocre politician and did not excel in govt.
If reform really wants to win over the red wall being cram packed full of former, largely failed, Tories is not going to help them and gives Labour plenty of lines of attack.
Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:
The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.
Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.
Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.
The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.
I'm sure it's a total coincidence, but Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were known for their charisma.
The difference I think is that Reagan, GW Bush and Trump were explicitly chosen for their charisma, in order to get the GOP elected in order to enact policies favouring the cynical hard men, the dark forces controlling the party.
Our closest analogy might be Tony Blair, at least insofar as the left saw his centrist views as a price worth paying to return to power. Maybe Cameron at a pinch.
I'm slightly struggling with Dubya Bush as a charisma focus - but my perception maybe skewed by UK reporting. I'm aware that he was good in his daily habits, and working sensible hours and so ... but charisma ?
To me, the Dubya stereotype is quite like Marlon in the Truman Show - the friend who keeps appearing with a crate of beer.
Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:
The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.
Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.
Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.
The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.
I'm sure it's a total coincidence, but Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were known for their charisma.
The difference I think is that Reagan, GW Bush and Trump were explicitly chosen for their charisma, in order to get the GOP elected in order to enact policies favouring the cynical hard men, the dark forces controlling the party.
Our closest analogy might be Tony Blair, at least insofar as the left saw his centrist views as a price worth paying to return to power. Maybe Cameron at a pinch.
I'm slightly struggling with Dubya Bush as a charisma focus - but my perception maybe skewed by UK reporting. I'm aware that he was good in his daily habits, and working sensible hours and so ... but charisma ?
To me, the Dubya stereotype is quite like Marlon in the Truman Show - the friend who keeps appearing with a crate of beer.
Dubya was certainly more charismatic than Gore or Kerry
And his own brother, who everyone assumed was the heir apparent.
Yes even his own parents seemed more upset that Jeb lost the Florida governor's race in 1994 than that Dubya won Texas as they expected the more intelligent Jeb to succeed his father George HW Bush as a future President. Dubya though was more charismatic and more ruthless than his brother and also won 2 presidential elections while his father won one and lost one, though George HW Bush was certainly more competent than his son
On a complete tangent - I mean, who wants to talk about Suella Braverman? Her record in Government when put under proper scrutiny will raise plenty of doubts about her capability to be a future Prime Minister.
Anyway, a propos very little, BAY CITY ROLLER won the final Group 1 of the European flat season in Germany yesterday. It wasn't an easy race to watch - not shown on either of the specialist racing channels or even in the betting shops so I had to watch it on Deutscher Galopp.
I was musing this morning on the race and on the name of the winner and the cultural connotations. At one place I worked, we all had to bring in embarrassing photos of our younger selves for the Christmas party one year and one of my colleagues brought in a picture of herself (aged 12 or 13) in the full Bay City Roller tartan get up with the tartan scarf, the double denim etc.
On my morning perambulation round the Derbyshire lanes today, I was musing on how much Scotland mattered in the 1970s - it was a period of cultural and social relevance when the country punched far above its weight. They had a better football team but the point was somehow Scotland was a huge part of the national consciousness then in a way it isn't now. Wales was also more evident but 50 years on you'd hardly know they were there.
As we have become more global in focus we have also become more insular. Identity is a funny thing - people want to belong, to be part of something yet it's also, I think, possible to have a multi-faceted identity and that identity crosses ethnicity and creed but has to move beyond romanticised and idealised versions of what never was. Within that, identity is evolving, what was British once isn't necessarily how it is defined now and indeed that definition is layered by time and external influences.
As my little sister used to sing
B A Y B A Y B A Y C I T Y R O double L E R S Bay city rollers are the best.
Zack Polanski on the balcony overlooking the Cenotaph for the first time GB news just shown, beside Sir Philip May. As he doesn't lead a party with more than 6 MPs like Farage for now he has to watch from a balcony, while Starmer, Badenoch, Davey, Flynn and Gavin Robinson lay wreaths
That must sting.
If Farage had been capable of vetting his candidates and holding his Parliamentary Party together, he'd have 6 or 7 MPS now and would be at the heart of it.
Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:
The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.
Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.
Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.
The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.
I'm sure it's a total coincidence, but Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were known for their charisma.
The difference I think is that Reagan, GW Bush and Trump were explicitly chosen for their charisma, in order to get the GOP elected in order to enact policies favouring the cynical hard men, the dark forces controlling the party.
Our closest analogy might be Tony Blair, at least insofar as the left saw his centrist views as a price worth paying to return to power. Maybe Cameron at a pinch.
I'm slightly struggling with Dubya Bush as a charisma focus - but my perception maybe skewed by UK reporting. I'm aware that he was good in his daily habits, and working sensible hours and so ... but charisma ?
To me, the Dubya stereotype is quite like Marlon in the Truman Show - the friend who keeps appearing with a crate of beer.
Dubya was certainly more charismatic than Gore or Kerry
And his own brother, who everyone assumed was the heir apparent.
Bloody hell, I'd completely forgotten about Jeb.
Jeb did eventually win the Florida governorship in 1998 but by then his brother had already been Texas governor for 4 years and cemented himself as frontrunner for the GOP nomination in the 2000 presidential election
Zack Polanski on the balcony overlooking the Cenotaph for the first time GB news just shown, beside Sir Philip May. As he doesn't lead a party with more than 6 MPs like Farage for now he has to watch from a balcony, while Starmer, Badenoch, Davey, Flynn and Gavin Robinson lay wreaths
That must sting.
If Farage had been capable of vetting his candidates and holding his Parliamentary Party together, he'd have 6 or 7 MPS now and would be at the heart of it.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.
Suella's greatest crime seems to have been being right.
She's a nasty woman, her homelessness is a lifestyle choice comments were vile, given the number of people with mental health/ex military people who are homeless, very few people choose to be homeless. I know somebody who was made homeless through no fault of her own, her partner had got himself into debt, and they banks/lender repossessed the property, she was 'lucky' because her family and friends stepped up, not everybody has that support system.
I told Boris Johnson that one of his proudest achievements as PM was to end rough sleeping at the start of the pandemic, one of his biggest failures was to ensure rough sleeping was a thing of the past.
A couple of points
- ex-military rough sleepers. A couple of years ago, a military charity, working with the military did a survey. What they found was - of the genuine ex-military, something like 95%+ among rough sleepers had been let go during *training*. For having suspected mental health issues. That’s interesting because that suggests an opportunity to help earlier.
- simply stuffing rough sleepers into hotels etc does very little. The issues that lead to people sleeping in cardboard boxes are not easy to solve
- the bigger problem is homelessness. Which isn’t rough sleeping. But not having a permanent home - see rooms in shitty “B&Bs” paid for by the council.
It’s almost as if a significant part of the problem can be fixed by allowing a lot more houses to be built.
The problem with this solution is it will take millions upon millions of houses to get to a situation where someone who is destitute and unable to work is able to afford one. Someone like me is far closer to buying a second home than many people are to buying or even renting a first - and we are already a country with 26 million spare bedrooms.
It's also economically unviable - the cost of materials and labour is so high that the equilibrium cost of housing is always going to be too high for these kinds of individuals, so givernment intervention is always going to be necessary. The real issue is economic inequality and lack of opportunities rather than housing per se.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.
Zack Polanski on the balcony overlooking the Cenotaph for the first time GB news just shown, beside Sir Philip May. As he doesn't lead a party with more than 6 MPs like Farage for now he has to watch from a balcony, while Starmer, Badenoch, Davey, Flynn and Gavin Robinson lay wreaths
Has he got his white poppy on ?
I’m amazed he’s there. I’d have thought he’d not want to partake.
I suspect if Suella Braverman defected to Reform and Liz Truss then followed her, Kemi would not be too displeased
Reform have got a real problem here.
One one hand they see themselves as the successor to the Conservative Party. So why not bring over the old guard.
On the other hand they are trying to do something the Tories couldn't do even at the height of their Boris pomp. Being stuffed full of Tories doesn't help.
So here is the basic question - does welcoming Braverman or Truss or Mogg help them or hinder them? I think the latter. And frankly Dorries was a mistake as well.
What’s the upside for Reform in taking Braverman if she was to defect. I cannot see any.
She’s a decidedly mediocre politician and did not excel in govt.
If reform really wants to win over the red wall being cram packed full of former, largely failed, Tories is not going to help them and gives Labour plenty of lines of attack.
I think it helps the Tories, weirdly, too.
I still think it requires a lot to go right for them, in the next 24 months or so, but there's a chance it looks like the incompetent old guard have deserted for Reform and the Tories can present themselves as genuinely the new brooms. That isn't something that happens overnight but if Reform do start to decline then things like this will help them.
I am now very firmly of the opinion that the Tories could do without a leadership contest right now.
Zack Polanski on the balcony overlooking the Cenotaph for the first time GB news just shown, beside Sir Philip May. As he doesn't lead a party with more than 6 MPs like Farage for now he has to watch from a balcony, while Starmer, Badenoch, Davey, Flynn and Gavin Robinson lay wreaths
Has he got his white poppy on ?
I’m amazed he’s there. I’d have thought he’d not want to partake.
He is attending the white poppy service later. I may dislike Polanski's views but he is sharp and not stupid, he wants to be a serious contender for national power from the left. He knows that refusing to attend the Cenotaph service today would be pounced on by the media and destroy his campaign to win many more Green MPs at the next GE even before it had begun
Suella's greatest crime seems to have been being right.
She's a nasty woman, her homelessness is a lifestyle choice comments were vile, given the number of people with mental health/ex military people who are homeless, very few people choose to be homeless. I know somebody who was made homeless through no fault of her own, her partner had got himself into debt, and they banks/lender repossessed the property, she was 'lucky' because her family and friends stepped up, not everybody has that support system.
I told Boris Johnson that one of his proudest achievements as PM was to end rough sleeping at the start of the pandemic, one of his biggest failures was to ensure rough sleeping was a thing of the past.
A couple of points
- ex-military rough sleepers. A couple of years ago, a military charity, working with the military did a survey. What they found was - of the genuine ex-military, something like 95%+ among rough sleepers had been let go during *training*. For having suspected mental health issues. That’s interesting because that suggests an opportunity to help earlier.
- simply stuffing rough sleepers into hotels etc does very little. The issues that lead to people sleeping in cardboard boxes are not easy to solve
- the bigger problem is homelessness. Which isn’t rough sleeping. But not having a permanent home - see rooms in shitty “B&Bs” paid for by the council.
It’s almost as if a significant part of the problem can be fixed by allowing a lot more houses to be built.
The homelessness - people without a permanent home - yes
Rough sleeping is harder. Essentially it’s drugs + alcohol + mental health + {something} that makes people pretty much incapable of steadily living inside. Just talk to people who run shelters about what happens.
In The Goode Olde Dayz, people like that were locked up when the place was getting untidy. Otherwise they were Tramps & Vagabonds.
Bombing them up on pharmaceuticals to make them docile won’t work - the drugs don’t make them feel good. The reverse in fact. So they stop taking them. And forcing people, against their will, to take such drugs is pretty much impossible, legally. At least these days.
So we can’t shove them in a madhouse (prison for the mentally unfixable) can’t turn them into zombies…
What’s left is trying to provide an avenue off the street for the small number who can/will get out if that life.
Zack Polanski on the balcony overlooking the Cenotaph for the first time GB news just shown, beside Sir Philip May. As he doesn't lead a party with more than 6 MPs like Farage for now he has to watch from a balcony, while Starmer, Badenoch, Davey, Flynn and Gavin Robinson lay wreaths
Has he got his white poppy on ?
I’m amazed he’s there. I’d have thought he’d not want to partake.
He is attending the white poppy service later. I may dislike Polanski's views but he is sharp and not stupid, he wants to be a serious contender for national power from the left. He knows that refusing to attend the Cenotaph service today would be pounced on by the media and destroy his campaign to win many more Green MPs at the next GE even before it had begun
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.
"For the Fallen" by Laurence Binyon, 1914.
Lest we forget.
Amen to that.
As direct memories of war fade in the UK, with only 8,000 WWII veterans still alive and with more recent British wars fought only by professional armies, sadly for many of us war has been a little too close to home in the last few years.
War memorial in Zhytomyr, Ukraine. August 2025, in a city of 250,000 to the West of Kiev outside the war zone.
There’s more than 500 photographs on display, many of them younger than me, many of them young enough to be my sons, and I say a prayer for them today.
Suella's greatest crime seems to have been being right.
She's a nasty woman, her homelessness is a lifestyle choice comments were vile, given the number of people with mental health/ex military people who are homeless, very few people choose to be homeless. I know somebody who was made homeless through no fault of her own, her partner had got himself into debt, and they banks/lender repossessed the property, she was 'lucky' because her family and friends stepped up, not everybody has that support system.
I told Boris Johnson that one of his proudest achievements as PM was to end rough sleeping at the start of the pandemic, one of his biggest failures was to ensure rough sleeping was a thing of the past.
A couple of points
- ex-military rough sleepers. A couple of years ago, a military charity, working with the military did a survey. What they found was - of the genuine ex-military, something like 95%+ among rough sleepers had been let go during *training*. For having suspected mental health issues. That’s interesting because that suggests an opportunity to help earlier.
- simply stuffing rough sleepers into hotels etc does very little. The issues that lead to people sleeping in cardboard boxes are not easy to solve
- the bigger problem is homelessness. Which isn’t rough sleeping. But not having a permanent home - see rooms in shitty “B&Bs” paid for by the council.
It’s almost as if a significant part of the problem can be fixed by allowing a lot more houses to be built.
Fine but the homeless generally can't afford the £600k for a new flat near West Ham station or even rent a small place at Fresh Wharf. IF you are going to build for the homeless and that's not always the solution, then make the homes available for nothing and if that means a developer has to take a haircut, so be it.
The developer builds the property and gives (not sells) the dwelling to the local council - perhaps 10% of all new builds could be free social housing for the homeless.
Let's see the developers step up and do their bit - perhaps we could offer some form of tax relief as a carrot.
If someone was to build a network of laws and regulations to make even 35% reduced price flats in a build uneconomic, that would be stupid, right?
No, wait, they did this. Which is why new starts in London have collapsed. And the government is talking about allowing zero reduced priced flats in some builds - 10% in others.
What we need is a holistic approach to what we want from buildings. Then a simple statement of these requirements. And some simple laws and regulations to achieve them. Backed by effective enforcement.
At the moment we have a large number of flats that were built under the old way of doing things - literal metric tons of paperwork. Some are clad in low grade firelighters. Others are structurally deficient. Others (many) have chronic damp, from compliance with stupid regulations on ventilation vs EPC - practically malicious compliance.
And thousands upon thousands of pages of bullshit about how this is all awesome.
A friend who found his block was structurally deficient, dug into the records - well, he being on the committee for the block got lawyers and engineers, paid for by the developer to look. They found no evidence that samples were taken of the concrete, during the pours, for testing. Huge block of flats - 100s of residents.
Joseph Bazalgette in 18 fucking 60 was having cement tests done. You pour cement into a small mold. You let it set at a set temperature for x hours. You then test it - tensile strength, compressive. Really simple stuff.
Yes that’s going to be an issue with any “record the mileage at MoT time” system.
More importantly it highlights the exact opposite of this issue, as demonstrated by Switzerland, of the need to deal appropriately with foreign-registered cars on British roads. Not too difficult to imagine wholesale abuse if countries such as Ireland operate a different system.
Suella's greatest crime seems to have been being right.
She's a nasty woman, her homelessness is a lifestyle choice comments were vile, given the number of people with mental health/ex military people who are homeless, very few people choose to be homeless. I know somebody who was made homeless through no fault of her own, her partner had got himself into debt, and they banks/lender repossessed the property, she was 'lucky' because her family and friends stepped up, not everybody has that support system.
I told Boris Johnson that one of his proudest achievements as PM was to end rough sleeping at the start of the pandemic, one of his biggest failures was to ensure rough sleeping was a thing of the past.
A couple of points
- ex-military rough sleepers. A couple of years ago, a military charity, working with the military did a survey. What they found was - of the genuine ex-military, something like 95%+ among rough sleepers had been let go during *training*. For having suspected mental health issues. That’s interesting because that suggests an opportunity to help earlier.
- simply stuffing rough sleepers into hotels etc does very little. The issues that lead to people sleeping in cardboard boxes are not easy to solve
- the bigger problem is homelessness. Which isn’t rough sleeping. But not having a permanent home - see rooms in shitty “B&Bs” paid for by the council.
It’s almost as if a significant part of the problem can be fixed by allowing a lot more houses to be built.
The homelessness - people without a permanent home - yes
Rough sleeping is harder. Essentially it’s drugs + alcohol + mental health + {something} that makes people pretty much incapable of steadily living inside. Just talk to people who run shelters about what happens.
In The Goode Olde Dayz, people like that were locked up when the place was getting untidy. Otherwise they were Tramps & Vagabonds.
Bombing them up on pharmaceuticals to make them docile won’t work - the drugs don’t make them feel good. The reverse in fact. So they stop taking them. And forcing people, against their will, to take such drugs is pretty much impossible, legally. At least these days.
So we can’t shove them in a madhouse (prison for the mentally unfixable) can’t turn them into zombies…
What’s left is trying to provide an avenue off the street for the small number who can/will get out if that life.
Which is why I support the charities that do that
Yes the issue of the rough sleeping drug addicts is a different problem, which requires more resources and is, as with asylum-seekers, difficult to manage legally.
For most of the other housing-related problems, the only answer is to build millions of houses, and reduce the bureaucracy and cost involved in doing so.
Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:
The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.
Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.
Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.
The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.
Sure Mamdani focussed on bread and butter issues but far from avoiding "identitarian issues" he was open in his support of Trans-rights, as listed here. His youtube ad in the link was from October.
And I am not convinced by the last paragraph. Corbyn and Polanski certainly have charisma, and Sultana has a massive social media following for a back-bencher.
Yes, I found that strange also. Mamdani didn't "largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years", he doubled down on them, including trans rights
Returning to Macbook Airs, is there much difference between one with an M2 chip and an M4 chip? Everything else is identical - memory size, display etc.
The former are available at £699 refurbished, the latter £879 new.
My gut feel is that the new one would be worth the 25% extra.
... the lesson for Labour is to focus relentlessly on the bread and butter economic issues...
Hmm. That doesn't seem like a lesson they have learned, will learn, or want to learn. "So you're poor? Here's an ID card!". I mean, what do you do with idiocy like that?
Returning to Macbook Airs, is there much difference between one with an M2 chip and an M4 chip? Everything else is identical - memory size, display etc.
The former are available at £699 refurbished, the latter £879 new.
My gut feel is that the new one would be worth the 25% extra.
I have the M2 and it's brilliant. If you're just looking for a great laptop for posting on PB and some light data analysis I'm not sure the marginal gain from the M4 is worth the extra cost tbh.
Good morning everyone. I was out last night so I'll try and pick up replies re: disfunctional state later on.
In the meantime, what happens if both the President and Vice-President of the USA are impeached and removed?
Does the Speaker of the House of Congress keep the post until the next Presidential Election, because their Elections are on a rigid timescale?
It's VERY far-fetched in reality, but not one I'd considered. The scenario is if in 2026 the Dems win the House, then enough Republican Senators (however many that is) help them impeach Trump and Vance.
But we have seen stranger things in the USA in the last two years.
You wouldn't get Republican Senators impeaching Trump and Vance, a handful might vote to impeach Trump if the Epstein files contained something devastating about POTUS but they wouldn't impeach the Veep as well. They certainly wouldn't vote to enable a Democrat Speaker to become POTUS over Vance
What are the dangers to President Trump? There are several:-
First, of course there is Epstein (although I'm sceptical until we see proof).
Second, SCOTUS is deciding whether the President does in fact have the power to impose tariffs. If that falls, so does most recent American foreign and trade policy.
Third, it's the economy, stupid, and America has its own cost of living crisis. Even Elon Musk had to put in for a payrise.
Fourth, the continued shutdown raises questions about organising piss-ups in breweries.
Fifth, the success of Democrats in winning elections in the last few days threatens the GOP hegemony.
Sixth, Trump is getting old, and some have questioned his marble-count.
Seventh, even if all goes well, Trump is term-limited to leave office, which means his party must soon start looking for his successor.
This sense that Trump is, one way or another, on his way out, might explain why MTG has applied to rejoin the sensible party.
Suella's greatest crime seems to have been being right.
She's a nasty woman, her homelessness is a lifestyle choice comments were vile, given the number of people with mental health/ex military people who are homeless, very few people choose to be homeless. I know somebody who was made homeless through no fault of her own, her partner had got himself into debt, and they banks/lender repossessed the property, she was 'lucky' because her family and friends stepped up, not everybody has that support system.
I told Boris Johnson that one of his proudest achievements as PM was to end rough sleeping at the start of the pandemic, one of his biggest failures was to ensure rough sleeping was a thing of the past.
A couple of points
- ex-military rough sleepers. A couple of years ago, a military charity, working with the military did a survey. What they found was - of the genuine ex-military, something like 95%+ among rough sleepers had been let go during *training*. For having suspected mental health issues. That’s interesting because that suggests an opportunity to help earlier.
- simply stuffing rough sleepers into hotels etc does very little. The issues that lead to people sleeping in cardboard boxes are not easy to solve
- the bigger problem is homelessness. Which isn’t rough sleeping. But not having a permanent home - see rooms in shitty “B&Bs” paid for by the council.
It’s almost as if a significant part of the problem can be fixed by allowing a lot more houses to be built.
The problem with this solution is it will take millions upon millions of houses to get to a situation where someone who is destitute and unable to work is able to afford one. Someone like me is far closer to buying a second home than many people are to buying or even renting a first - and we are already a country with 26 million spare bedrooms.
It's also economically unviable - the cost of materials and labour is so high that the equilibrium cost of housing is always going to be too high for these kinds of individuals, so givernment intervention is always going to be necessary. The real issue is economic inequality and lack of opportunities rather than housing per se.
The reason costs are so high is the labour input. Which is driven by the cost of even renting a room in an HMO.
Yup - the cost of housing is a function of the cost of housing. Multiplied by the regulatory burden.
In terms of defection watch, it is very much an insiders market. Also more likely to be some obscure back-bencher than someone like Braverman.
There may also be other defections, for example Labour to Green, or Your Party to Green, Your Party seeming to be as rancourous as Reform.
Most of the Your Party MPs seem unlikely to ever defect to Green. It's only Sultana who might do so, unhappy with the others. Even with her, I think it unlikely.
Returning to Macbook Airs, is there much difference between one with an M2 chip and an M4 chip? Everything else is identical - memory size, display etc.
The former are available at £699 refurbished, the latter £879 new.
My gut feel is that the new one would be worth the 25% extra.
The M4 is a touch faster, but not so much so that you’ll notice it out of the box I suspect.
One thing to watch is memory - 8Gb was the standard / lowest available for the M2 era Airs & that’s really not enough in the modern era. M4s come with a minimum of 16Gb as standard IIRC.
In terms of defection watch, it is very much an insiders market. Also more likely to be some obscure back-bencher than someone like Braverman.
There may also be other defections, for example Labour to Green, or Your Party to Green, Your Party seeming to be as rancourous as Reform.
Most of the Your Party MPs seem unlikely to ever defect to Green. It's only Sultana who might do so, unhappy with the others. Even with her, I think it unlikely.
Returning to Macbook Airs, is there much difference between one with an M2 chip and an M4 chip? Everything else is identical - memory size, display etc.
The former are available at £699 refurbished, the latter £879 new.
My gut feel is that the new one would be worth the 25% extra.
The other thing is support life. For comparison, see below. Note that no M series has come to end of support yet.
Returning to Macbook Airs, is there much difference between one with an M2 chip and an M4 chip? Everything else is identical - memory size, display etc.
The former are available at £699 refurbished, the latter £879 new.
My gut feel is that the new one would be worth the 25% extra.
The other thing is support life. For comparison, see below. Note that no M series has come to end of support yet.
Model version
Chip type
First appeared
OS support ceased
Support lifetime (yrs mo)
Last supported macOS
MacBook Pro (13" Mid 2010)
Intel
Apr 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 6 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15) (est)
MacBook Air (Late 2010)
Intel
Oct 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 0 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Early 2011)
Intel
Feb 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 8 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2011)
Intel
Jul 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 3 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Air (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2012)
Intel
Oct 2012
Oct 2023 (est)
11 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2013)
Intel
Oct 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2013)
Intel
Jun 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2014)
Intel
Jul 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 3 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2014)
Intel
Apr 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 6 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2015)
Intel
May 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 5 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2016)
Intel
Apr 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 6 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (Touch Bar 2016–17)
Intel
Oct 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook (12" 2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Air (2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (2018–19 Intel)
Intel
Jul 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Retina 2018)
Intel
Oct 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Pro (16" 2019)
Intel
Nov 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 11 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (2019)
Intel
Jul 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
6 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Intel 2020)
Intel
Mar 2020
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 7 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (13" M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (14"/16" M1 Pro/Max)
M1 Pro / M1 Max
Oct 2021
–
3 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Air (M2)
M2
Jun 2022
–
2 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (M2/M3 family)
M2 / M3
2022–24
–
≤3 yrs (ongoing)
–
Is the battery user-replaceable? Got caught out on that with Microsoft with their first Surface Book laptop. The bastards glued it in.
Returning to Macbook Airs, is there much difference between one with an M2 chip and an M4 chip? Everything else is identical - memory size, display etc.
The former are available at £699 refurbished, the latter £879 new.
My gut feel is that the new one would be worth the 25% extra.
The other thing is support life. For comparison, see below. Note that no M series has come to end of support yet.
Model version
Chip type
First appeared
OS support ceased
Support lifetime (yrs mo)
Last supported macOS
MacBook Pro (13" Mid 2010)
Intel
Apr 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 6 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15) (est)
MacBook Air (Late 2010)
Intel
Oct 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 0 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Early 2011)
Intel
Feb 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 8 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2011)
Intel
Jul 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 3 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Air (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2012)
Intel
Oct 2012
Oct 2023 (est)
11 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2013)
Intel
Oct 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2013)
Intel
Jun 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2014)
Intel
Jul 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 3 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2014)
Intel
Apr 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 6 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2015)
Intel
May 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 5 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2016)
Intel
Apr 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 6 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (Touch Bar 2016–17)
Intel
Oct 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook (12" 2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Air (2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (2018–19 Intel)
Intel
Jul 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Retina 2018)
Intel
Oct 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Pro (16" 2019)
Intel
Nov 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 11 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (2019)
Intel
Jul 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
6 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Intel 2020)
Intel
Mar 2020
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 7 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (13" M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (14"/16" M1 Pro/Max)
M1 Pro / M1 Max
Oct 2021
–
3 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Air (M2)
M2
Jun 2022
–
2 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (M2/M3 family)
M2 / M3
2022–24
–
≤3 yrs (ongoing)
–
Is the battery user-replaceable? Got caught out on that with Microsoft with their first Surface Book laptop. The bastards glued it in.
No - the recent Macs don't have user replaceable batteries.
Returning to Macbook Airs, is there much difference between one with an M2 chip and an M4 chip? Everything else is identical - memory size, display etc.
The former are available at £699 refurbished, the latter £879 new.
My gut feel is that the new one would be worth the 25% extra.
The other thing is support life. For comparison, see below. Note that no M series has come to end of support yet.
Model version
Chip type
First appeared
OS support ceased
Support lifetime (yrs mo)
Last supported macOS
MacBook Pro (13" Mid 2010)
Intel
Apr 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 6 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15) (est)
MacBook Air (Late 2010)
Intel
Oct 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 0 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Early 2011)
Intel
Feb 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 8 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2011)
Intel
Jul 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 3 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Air (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2012)
Intel
Oct 2012
Oct 2023 (est)
11 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2013)
Intel
Oct 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2013)
Intel
Jun 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2014)
Intel
Jul 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 3 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2014)
Intel
Apr 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 6 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2015)
Intel
May 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 5 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2016)
Intel
Apr 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 6 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (Touch Bar 2016–17)
Intel
Oct 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook (12" 2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Air (2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (2018–19 Intel)
Intel
Jul 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Retina 2018)
Intel
Oct 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Pro (16" 2019)
Intel
Nov 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 11 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (2019)
Intel
Jul 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
6 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Intel 2020)
Intel
Mar 2020
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 7 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (13" M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (14"/16" M1 Pro/Max)
M1 Pro / M1 Max
Oct 2021
–
3 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Air (M2)
M2
Jun 2022
–
2 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (M2/M3 family)
M2 / M3
2022–24
–
≤3 yrs (ongoing)
–
Is the battery user-replaceable? Got caught out on that with Microsoft with their first Surface Book laptop. The bastards glued it in.
No - the recent Macs don't have user replaceable batteries.
Interesting. And to me a major reason not to buy, on first sight. How long do they usually last?
Returning to Macbook Airs, is there much difference between one with an M2 chip and an M4 chip? Everything else is identical - memory size, display etc.
The former are available at £699 refurbished, the latter £879 new.
My gut feel is that the new one would be worth the 25% extra.
The other thing is support life. For comparison, see below. Note that no M series has come to end of support yet.
Model version
Chip type
First appeared
OS support ceased
Support lifetime (yrs mo)
Last supported macOS
MacBook Pro (13" Mid 2010)
Intel
Apr 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 6 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15) (est)
MacBook Air (Late 2010)
Intel
Oct 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 0 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Early 2011)
Intel
Feb 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 8 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2011)
Intel
Jul 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 3 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Air (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2012)
Intel
Oct 2012
Oct 2023 (est)
11 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2013)
Intel
Oct 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2013)
Intel
Jun 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2014)
Intel
Jul 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 3 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2014)
Intel
Apr 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 6 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2015)
Intel
May 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 5 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2016)
Intel
Apr 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 6 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (Touch Bar 2016–17)
Intel
Oct 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook (12" 2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Air (2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (2018–19 Intel)
Intel
Jul 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Retina 2018)
Intel
Oct 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Pro (16" 2019)
Intel
Nov 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 11 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (2019)
Intel
Jul 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
6 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Intel 2020)
Intel
Mar 2020
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 7 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (13" M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (14"/16" M1 Pro/Max)
M1 Pro / M1 Max
Oct 2021
–
3 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Air (M2)
M2
Jun 2022
–
2 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (M2/M3 family)
M2 / M3
2022–24
–
≤3 yrs (ongoing)
–
Is the battery user-replaceable? Got caught out on that with Microsoft with their first Surface Book laptop. The bastards glued it in.
No - the recent Macs don't have user replaceable batteries.
But the battery life is longer than most Windows laptops' working life. Plus any decent high street repairer will replace the battery for you if you need it done... I had my 2010 Macbook battery replaced after 12 years for £60 IIRC.
Edit: the 2020 M1 Macbook Air I am typing this on has been used for several hours every day on battery and I have just checked - battery has 83% of capacity when new.
In terms of defection watch, it is very much an insiders market. Also more likely to be some obscure back-bencher than someone like Braverman.
There may also be other defections, for example Labour to Green, or Your Party to Green, Your Party seeming to be as rancourous as Reform.
Most of the Your Party MPs seem unlikely to ever defect to Green. It's only Sultana who might do so, unhappy with the others. Even with her, I think it unlikely.
Like everyone else, Sultana is discombobulated by the shift in the dominant axis of our politics.
As long as the defining question of elections is about money, you can put Gerive and Sunak in one party, Blair and Kinnock in another, and it sort of coheres. No, they don't agree on everything, but each party agrees with itself more than it agrees with the Otherlot Party.
Trouble is, now elections aren't so much about money. Partly, there's more of it than in generations before, partly because the extremes of 83 percent tax and 15 percent tax have been ruled out as not leading to nice places to live, partly because the remaining question (there is a gap between what we want the government to do and what we will cheerily pay for it) is too painful to contemplate. But the big question has been approximately solved and we all have it better than Macmillan's 'never had it so good' generation, let alone the generations we have just been remembering.
So, instead, politics is about society. That has already kippered the Conservative Party. There have always been metropolitan liberals and provincial hangers'n'floggers, and they have little uniting them any more. The latter have moved to Reform and the former are reduced to making podcasts because nobody else wants them. Something similar is happening in Labour- the tension between their ancestral Red Wall heartland, their Islington thinkbase, and the youngish suburban graduates who actually voted for them.
No reason why the harder left should be immune. Greens tend towards ultrawoke, Gaza Indies... don't. And at some point, Reform are going to have to resolve whether they are against the Nanny State, or all for Nanny giving naughty children a sound spanking.
Returning to Macbook Airs, is there much difference between one with an M2 chip and an M4 chip? Everything else is identical - memory size, display etc.
The former are available at £699 refurbished, the latter £879 new.
My gut feel is that the new one would be worth the 25% extra.
The other thing is support life. For comparison, see below. Note that no M series has come to end of support yet.
Model version
Chip type
First appeared
OS support ceased
Support lifetime (yrs mo)
Last supported macOS
MacBook Pro (13" Mid 2010)
Intel
Apr 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 6 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15) (est)
MacBook Air (Late 2010)
Intel
Oct 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 0 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Early 2011)
Intel
Feb 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 8 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2011)
Intel
Jul 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 3 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Air (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2012)
Intel
Oct 2012
Oct 2023 (est)
11 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2013)
Intel
Oct 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2013)
Intel
Jun 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2014)
Intel
Jul 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 3 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2014)
Intel
Apr 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 6 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2015)
Intel
May 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 5 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2016)
Intel
Apr 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 6 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (Touch Bar 2016–17)
Intel
Oct 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook (12" 2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Air (2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (2018–19 Intel)
Intel
Jul 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Retina 2018)
Intel
Oct 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Pro (16" 2019)
Intel
Nov 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 11 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (2019)
Intel
Jul 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
6 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Intel 2020)
Intel
Mar 2020
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 7 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (13" M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (14"/16" M1 Pro/Max)
M1 Pro / M1 Max
Oct 2021
–
3 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Air (M2)
M2
Jun 2022
–
2 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (M2/M3 family)
M2 / M3
2022–24
–
≤3 yrs (ongoing)
–
Is the battery user-replaceable? Got caught out on that with Microsoft with their first Surface Book laptop. The bastards glued it in.
No - the recent Macs don't have user replaceable batteries.
Interesting. And to me a major reason not to buy, on first sight. How long do they usually last?
I’ve used Macs as developer for years - a well supported BSD Unix etc
Never seen a need to replace a battery for lifespan. A couple of people had defective (swelling) batteries replaced under warranty.
That’s assuming a 5-7 year lifespan. I know a few people with 10 year old Mac laptops and they seem fine, as well.
Returning to Macbook Airs, is there much difference between one with an M2 chip and an M4 chip? Everything else is identical - memory size, display etc.
The former are available at £699 refurbished, the latter £879 new.
My gut feel is that the new one would be worth the 25% extra.
The other thing is support life. For comparison, see below. Note that no M series has come to end of support yet.
Model version
Chip type
First appeared
OS support ceased
Support lifetime (yrs mo)
Last supported macOS
MacBook Pro (13" Mid 2010)
Intel
Apr 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 6 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15) (est)
MacBook Air (Late 2010)
Intel
Oct 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 0 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Early 2011)
Intel
Feb 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 8 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2011)
Intel
Jul 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 3 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Air (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2012)
Intel
Oct 2012
Oct 2023 (est)
11 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2013)
Intel
Oct 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2013)
Intel
Jun 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2014)
Intel
Jul 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 3 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2014)
Intel
Apr 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 6 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2015)
Intel
May 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 5 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2016)
Intel
Apr 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 6 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (Touch Bar 2016–17)
Intel
Oct 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook (12" 2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Air (2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (2018–19 Intel)
Intel
Jul 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Retina 2018)
Intel
Oct 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Pro (16" 2019)
Intel
Nov 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 11 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (2019)
Intel
Jul 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
6 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Intel 2020)
Intel
Mar 2020
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 7 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (13" M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (14"/16" M1 Pro/Max)
M1 Pro / M1 Max
Oct 2021
–
3 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Air (M2)
M2
Jun 2022
–
2 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (M2/M3 family)
M2 / M3
2022–24
–
≤3 yrs (ongoing)
–
Is the battery user-replaceable? Got caught out on that with Microsoft with their first Surface Book laptop. The bastards glued it in.
No - the recent Macs don't have user replaceable batteries.
Interesting. And to me a major reason not to buy, on first sight. How long do they usually last?
They did a quite remarkable job in making that car so undriveable - meanwhile both Racing Bulls are in the top 10
I'm relieved to see TSE is still alive, although I'm a bit concerned he's only able to do simple stuff like post thread headers. Is he still shaking so much with laughter?
Not my kind of market but you would've got wonderful odds on Verstappen going out in Q1.
First time he's ever been at the back on raw pace, rather than because of mechanical failure, a crash or a penalty.
Which is quite the statistic.
The paddock rumours are that he’ll take a pit lane start, with a new engine and setup.
There’s probably some poor reserve driver who’s spent the whole night in the factory simulator as the engineers try and find a not-rubbish way to set up the car.
I've had a cheeky tenner on Verstappen to win today, I remember last year.
Well you’ll be pleased to know it’s currently raining hard in São Paulo.
Returning to Macbook Airs, is there much difference between one with an M2 chip and an M4 chip? Everything else is identical - memory size, display etc.
The former are available at £699 refurbished, the latter £879 new.
My gut feel is that the new one would be worth the 25% extra.
The other thing is support life. For comparison, see below. Note that no M series has come to end of support yet.
Model version
Chip type
First appeared
OS support ceased
Support lifetime (yrs mo)
Last supported macOS
MacBook Pro (13" Mid 2010)
Intel
Apr 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 6 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15) (est)
MacBook Air (Late 2010)
Intel
Oct 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 0 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Early 2011)
Intel
Feb 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 8 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2011)
Intel
Jul 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 3 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Air (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2012)
Intel
Oct 2012
Oct 2023 (est)
11 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2013)
Intel
Oct 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2013)
Intel
Jun 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2014)
Intel
Jul 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 3 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2014)
Intel
Apr 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 6 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2015)
Intel
May 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 5 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2016)
Intel
Apr 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 6 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (Touch Bar 2016–17)
Intel
Oct 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook (12" 2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Air (2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (2018–19 Intel)
Intel
Jul 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Retina 2018)
Intel
Oct 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Pro (16" 2019)
Intel
Nov 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 11 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (2019)
Intel
Jul 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
6 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Intel 2020)
Intel
Mar 2020
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 7 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (13" M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (14"/16" M1 Pro/Max)
M1 Pro / M1 Max
Oct 2021
–
3 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Air (M2)
M2
Jun 2022
–
2 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (M2/M3 family)
M2 / M3
2022–24
–
≤3 yrs (ongoing)
–
Is the battery user-replaceable? Got caught out on that with Microsoft with their first Surface Book laptop. The bastards glued it in.
No - the recent Macs don't have user replaceable batteries.
Interesting. And to me a major reason not to buy, on first sight. How long do they usually last?
10+ years
Depends on usage. My old MacBook Pro can no longer hold a charge, despite only being four years old. The 4000 charging cycles may have something to do with that though.
Returning to Macbook Airs, is there much difference between one with an M2 chip and an M4 chip? Everything else is identical - memory size, display etc.
The former are available at £699 refurbished, the latter £879 new.
My gut feel is that the new one would be worth the 25% extra.
The other thing is support life. For comparison, see below. Note that no M series has come to end of support yet.
Model version
Chip type
First appeared
OS support ceased
Support lifetime (yrs mo)
Last supported macOS
MacBook Pro (13" Mid 2010)
Intel
Apr 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 6 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15) (est)
MacBook Air (Late 2010)
Intel
Oct 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 0 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Early 2011)
Intel
Feb 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 8 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2011)
Intel
Jul 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 3 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Air (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2012)
Intel
Oct 2012
Oct 2023 (est)
11 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2013)
Intel
Oct 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2013)
Intel
Jun 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2014)
Intel
Jul 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 3 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2014)
Intel
Apr 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 6 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2015)
Intel
May 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 5 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2016)
Intel
Apr 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 6 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (Touch Bar 2016–17)
Intel
Oct 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook (12" 2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Air (2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (2018–19 Intel)
Intel
Jul 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Retina 2018)
Intel
Oct 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Pro (16" 2019)
Intel
Nov 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 11 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (2019)
Intel
Jul 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
6 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Intel 2020)
Intel
Mar 2020
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 7 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (13" M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (14"/16" M1 Pro/Max)
M1 Pro / M1 Max
Oct 2021
–
3 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Air (M2)
M2
Jun 2022
–
2 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (M2/M3 family)
M2 / M3
2022–24
–
≤3 yrs (ongoing)
–
Is the battery user-replaceable? Got caught out on that with Microsoft with their first Surface Book laptop. The bastards glued it in.
No - the recent Macs don't have user replaceable batteries.
Interesting. And to me a major reason not to buy, on first sight. How long do they usually last?
I’ve used Macs as developer for years - a well supported BSD Unix etc
Never seen a need to replace a battery for lifespan. A couple of people had defective (swelling) batteries replaced under warranty.
That’s assuming a 5-7 year lifespan. I know a few people with 10 year old Mac laptops and they seem fine, as well.
Thanks to you and @Benpointer - my MS laptop became a dud a lot more quickly than that.
Edit: thanks for the comments I mean - not blaming you for my laptop ...
Just returned from a local Remembrance Service. A BT van was parked between the Lych Gate and War Memorial, blocking the area where the choir usually stands. I wonder if the driver was being stroppy or just thick.
Returning to Macbook Airs, is there much difference between one with an M2 chip and an M4 chip? Everything else is identical - memory size, display etc.
The former are available at £699 refurbished, the latter £879 new.
My gut feel is that the new one would be worth the 25% extra.
The other thing is support life. For comparison, see below. Note that no M series has come to end of support yet.
Model version
Chip type
First appeared
OS support ceased
Support lifetime (yrs mo)
Last supported macOS
MacBook Pro (13" Mid 2010)
Intel
Apr 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 6 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15) (est)
MacBook Air (Late 2010)
Intel
Oct 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 0 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Early 2011)
Intel
Feb 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 8 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2011)
Intel
Jul 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 3 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Air (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2012)
Intel
Oct 2012
Oct 2023 (est)
11 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2013)
Intel
Oct 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2013)
Intel
Jun 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2014)
Intel
Jul 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 3 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2014)
Intel
Apr 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 6 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2015)
Intel
May 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 5 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2016)
Intel
Apr 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 6 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (Touch Bar 2016–17)
Intel
Oct 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook (12" 2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Air (2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (2018–19 Intel)
Intel
Jul 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Retina 2018)
Intel
Oct 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Pro (16" 2019)
Intel
Nov 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 11 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (2019)
Intel
Jul 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
6 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Intel 2020)
Intel
Mar 2020
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 7 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (13" M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (14"/16" M1 Pro/Max)
M1 Pro / M1 Max
Oct 2021
–
3 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Air (M2)
M2
Jun 2022
–
2 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (M2/M3 family)
M2 / M3
2022–24
–
≤3 yrs (ongoing)
–
Is the battery user-replaceable? Got caught out on that with Microsoft with their first Surface Book laptop. The bastards glued it in.
No - the recent Macs don't have user replaceable batteries.
But the battery life is longer than most Windows laptops' working life. Plus any decent high street repairer will replace the battery for you if you need it done... I had my 2010 Macbook battery replaced after 12 years for £60 IIRC.
Edit: the 2020 M1 Macbook Air I am typing this on has been used for several hours every day on battery and I have just checked - battery has 83% of capacity when new.
The repairers wouldn't touch my MS machine ... too difficult to tear down without breaking screen, etc. etc. Though I gather they have improved (MS I mean). Even so it's left a permanent scar, and I never buy a laptop or phone that isn't at least with a user-replaceable battery.
In terms of defection watch, it is very much an insiders market. Also more likely to be some obscure back-bencher than someone like Braverman.
There may also be other defections, for example Labour to Green, or Your Party to Green, Your Party seeming to be as rancourous as Reform.
Does Independent Alliance to Your Party count as a defection? Cos there's half a dozen of those coming up. The IA isnt a political party, but it is a parliamentary caucus or whatever we call them in the UK
Returning to Macbook Airs, is there much difference between one with an M2 chip and an M4 chip? Everything else is identical - memory size, display etc.
The former are available at £699 refurbished, the latter £879 new.
My gut feel is that the new one would be worth the 25% extra.
The other thing is support life. For comparison, see below. Note that no M series has come to end of support yet.
Model version
Chip type
First appeared
OS support ceased
Support lifetime (yrs mo)
Last supported macOS
MacBook Pro (13" Mid 2010)
Intel
Apr 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 6 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15) (est)
MacBook Air (Late 2010)
Intel
Oct 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 0 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Early 2011)
Intel
Feb 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 8 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2011)
Intel
Jul 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 3 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Air (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2012)
Intel
Oct 2012
Oct 2023 (est)
11 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2013)
Intel
Oct 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2013)
Intel
Jun 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2014)
Intel
Jul 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 3 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2014)
Intel
Apr 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 6 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2015)
Intel
May 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 5 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2016)
Intel
Apr 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 6 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (Touch Bar 2016–17)
Intel
Oct 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook (12" 2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Air (2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (2018–19 Intel)
Intel
Jul 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Retina 2018)
Intel
Oct 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Pro (16" 2019)
Intel
Nov 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 11 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (2019)
Intel
Jul 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
6 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Intel 2020)
Intel
Mar 2020
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 7 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (13" M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (14"/16" M1 Pro/Max)
M1 Pro / M1 Max
Oct 2021
–
3 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Air (M2)
M2
Jun 2022
–
2 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (M2/M3 family)
M2 / M3
2022–24
–
≤3 yrs (ongoing)
–
Is the battery user-replaceable? Got caught out on that with Microsoft with their first Surface Book laptop. The bastards glued it in.
No - the recent Macs don't have user replaceable batteries.
Interesting. And to me a major reason not to buy, on first sight. How long do they usually last?
10+ years
Depends on usage. My old MacBook Pro can no longer hold a charge, despite only being four years old. The 4000 charging cycles may have something to do with that though.
Wow that's a lot of charge cycles! This Macbook is on 362 charge cycles. I haven't checked recently but I'd guess I get 4-5 days between charge (and the cycle count would bear that out). Screen usage shows between 3 - 6 hours every day.
In terms of defection watch, it is very much an insiders market. Also more likely to be some obscure back-bencher than someone like Braverman.
There may also be other defections, for example Labour to Green, or Your Party to Green, Your Party seeming to be as rancourous as Reform.
One could posit a correlation between more ideological politics and more infighting, on the basis that practical, moderate pragmatic politicians are more used to compromises with others and with the world as it actually is.
The demise of the Tory Party essentially derives from the triumph of ideology over pragmatism, the irony being that its replacement on the right looks more ideological still - and may of course finish up going the same way.
@isam posted recently about his bad bet on Starmer winning seats last year, because Starmer is so lacking in either charisma or coherence. An example perhaps of the betting corollory to the stock market aphorism "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent".
I think we all know that Farage will be a disaster as PM but that doesnt mean that he won't get the gig. Sensible Tories would never support him in the event of a Reform minority government. It would be the end of them.
(If you are triggered by what appears to be my catchphrase, look away now)
What the "Starmer is awful, he'll never be PM" bet missed was that someone had to win in 2024, and everyone else was clearly even worse. That was as true on the Labour benches as in the other parties.
Starmer has no fans, which is why none of his fans have tried to explain his poor polling. Heck, I don't think he expected, or particularly wanted, to be PM in 2020. It was only the multiple pileup of clown cars by the Conservatives that gave him the opportunity. And that opportunity was always a chalice with unusual skull-and-crossbones markings.
Right now, his job is to absorb as much of the toxicity heading the British government's way, and see which of the next generation of ministers is any good. They can take over in 2028, and then the game is afoot again.
Until then, we all have to wait. Unfortunate for us, and for him, but there we are.
Well, I had the bet before partygate was revealed for the second time (the first was in The Times the day after the cake, but no one cared then), so the incumbent had a great chance of winning. I ran into a black swan which allowed Starmer a walkover, but it happens
Here's an example of the Refurbished M2 Macbook Air I mentioned. This is at Argos. 16Mb memory. The other important number is that it is 2022 rather than say 2020.
Returning to Macbook Airs, is there much difference between one with an M2 chip and an M4 chip? Everything else is identical - memory size, display etc.
The former are available at £699 refurbished, the latter £879 new.
My gut feel is that the new one would be worth the 25% extra.
The other thing is support life. For comparison, see below. Note that no M series has come to end of support yet.
Model version
Chip type
First appeared
OS support ceased
Support lifetime (yrs mo)
Last supported macOS
MacBook Pro (13" Mid 2010)
Intel
Apr 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 6 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15) (est)
MacBook Air (Late 2010)
Intel
Oct 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 0 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Early 2011)
Intel
Feb 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 8 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2011)
Intel
Jul 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 3 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Air (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2012)
Intel
Oct 2012
Oct 2023 (est)
11 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2013)
Intel
Oct 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2013)
Intel
Jun 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2014)
Intel
Jul 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 3 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2014)
Intel
Apr 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 6 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2015)
Intel
May 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 5 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2016)
Intel
Apr 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 6 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (Touch Bar 2016–17)
Intel
Oct 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook (12" 2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Air (2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (2018–19 Intel)
Intel
Jul 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Retina 2018)
Intel
Oct 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Pro (16" 2019)
Intel
Nov 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 11 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (2019)
Intel
Jul 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
6 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Intel 2020)
Intel
Mar 2020
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 7 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (13" M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (14"/16" M1 Pro/Max)
M1 Pro / M1 Max
Oct 2021
–
3 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Air (M2)
M2
Jun 2022
–
2 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (M2/M3 family)
M2 / M3
2022–24
–
≤3 yrs (ongoing)
–
Is the battery user-replaceable? Got caught out on that with Microsoft with their first Surface Book laptop. The bastards glued it in.
No - the recent Macs don't have user replaceable batteries.
But the battery life is longer than most Windows laptops' working life. Plus any decent high street repairer will replace the battery for you if you need it done... I had my 2010 Macbook battery replaced after 12 years for £60 IIRC.
Edit: the 2020 M1 Macbook Air I am typing this on has been used for several hours every day on battery and I have just checked - battery has 83% of capacity when new.
The repairers wouldn't touch my MS machine ... too difficult to tear down without breaking screen, etc. etc. Though I gather they have improved (MS I mean). Even so it's left a permanent scar, and I never buy a laptop or phone that isn't at least with a user-replaceable battery.
Well you're excluding yourself from the best laptop experience available then.
I guess it depends what you mean by 'user-replaceable' Personally I'd rather pay someone £20 to do this but, you can do it yourself if you want (not that you'll ever need to):
In terms of defection watch, it is very much an insiders market. Also more likely to be some obscure back-bencher than someone like Braverman.
There may also be other defections, for example Labour to Green, or Your Party to Green, Your Party seeming to be as rancourous as Reform.
One could posit a correlation between more ideological politics and more infighting, on the basis that practical, moderate pragmatic politicians are more used to compromises with others and with the world as it actually is.
The demise of the Tory Party essentially derives from the triumph of ideology over pragmatism, the irony being that its replacement on the right looks more ideological still - and may of course finish up going the same way.
@isam posted recently about his bad bet on Starmer winning seats last year, because Starmer is so lacking in either charisma or coherence. An example perhaps of the betting corollory to the stock market aphorism "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent".
I think we all know that Farage will be a disaster as PM but that doesnt mean that he won't get the gig. Sensible Tories would never support him in the event of a Reform minority government. It would be the end of them.
(If you are triggered by what appears to be my catchphrase, look away now)
What the "Starmer is awful, he'll never be PM" bet missed was that someone had to win in 2024, and everyone else was clearly even worse. That was as true on the Labour benches as in the other parties.
Starmer has no fans, which is why none of his fans have tried to explain his poor polling. Heck, I don't think he expected, or particularly wanted, to be PM in 2020. It was only the multiple pileup of clown cars by the Conservatives that gave him the opportunity. And that opportunity was always a chalice with unusual skull-and-crossbones markings.
Right now, his job is to absorb as much of the toxicity heading the British government's way, and see which of the next generation of ministers is any good. They can take over in 2028, and then the game is afoot again.
Until then, we all have to wait. Unfortunate for us, and for him, but there we are.
Well, I had the bet before partygate was revealed for the second time (the first was in The Times the day after the cake, but no one cared then), so the incumbent had a great chance of winning. I ran into a black swan which allowed Starmer a walkover, but it happens
Which black swan? There was a whole flock of them surely?
Last time Kemi and Keir lay the first political wreathes?
My view - Badenoch possibly. Starmer probably not. He's got at least another 18 months yet I'd say.
If Starmer does truly horribly in the locals in May, then he's under big pressure. Perversely, it may give Kemi some cover if the Tories do badly, but (looking at Labour) not that badly...
Zack Polanski on Sky this morning name checked Nadia Whittome as his choice for labour leader !!!!!
I would say she's the most likely Lab MP to jump ship to Greens.
Polanski has a piece in today's Observer. Only mentions 'climate' once and does not mention the environment or sustainability at all. Most of article is waxing lyrically about how wonderful NY's new mayor is and how we need to tax the rich and take wealth and redistribute.
How long before there is a split and an Ecology Party is formed?
In terms of defection watch, it is very much an insiders market. Also more likely to be some obscure back-bencher than someone like Braverman.
There may also be other defections, for example Labour to Green, or Your Party to Green, Your Party seeming to be as rancourous as Reform.
One could posit a correlation between more ideological politics and more infighting, on the basis that practical, moderate pragmatic politicians are more used to compromises with others and with the world as it actually is.
The demise of the Tory Party essentially derives from the triumph of ideology over pragmatism, the irony being that its replacement on the right looks more ideological still - and may of course finish up going the same way.
@isam posted recently about his bad bet on Starmer winning seats last year, because Starmer is so lacking in either charisma or coherence. An example perhaps of the betting corollory to the stock market aphorism "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent".
I think we all know that Farage will be a disaster as PM but that doesnt mean that he won't get the gig. Sensible Tories would never support him in the event of a Reform minority government. It would be the end of them.
(If you are triggered by what appears to be my catchphrase, look away now)
What the "Starmer is awful, he'll never be PM" bet missed was that someone had to win in 2024, and everyone else was clearly even worse. That was as true on the Labour benches as in the other parties.
Starmer has no fans, which is why none of his fans have tried to explain his poor polling. Heck, I don't think he expected, or particularly wanted, to be PM in 2020. It was only the multiple pileup of clown cars by the Conservatives that gave him the opportunity. And that opportunity was always a chalice with unusual skull-and-crossbones markings.
Right now, his job is to absorb as much of the toxicity heading the British government's way, and see which of the next generation of ministers is any good. They can take over in 2028, and then the game is afoot again.
Until then, we all have to wait. Unfortunate for us, and for him, but there we are.
Well, I had the bet before partygate was revealed for the second time (the first was in The Times the day after the cake, but no one cared then), so the incumbent had a great chance of winning. I ran into a black swan which allowed Starmer a walkover, but it happens
Fair enough.
Though my thinking was that you can't repeatedly fly that close to the Sun without getting burnt. As Boris had many times before. Eventually, it was bound to be fatal.
Had it not been partygate + Patersongate + Pinchergrate, it would have been Patersongate + Pinchergrate + the gate of scandal yet to come.
And from the very beginning, it was obvious he couldn't bring himself to leave a political heir, let alone a spare.
In terms of defection watch, it is very much an insiders market. Also more likely to be some obscure back-bencher than someone like Braverman.
There may also be other defections, for example Labour to Green, or Your Party to Green, Your Party seeming to be as rancourous as Reform.
One could posit a correlation between more ideological politics and more infighting, on the basis that practical, moderate pragmatic politicians are more used to compromises with others and with the world as it actually is.
The demise of the Tory Party essentially derives from the triumph of ideology over pragmatism, the irony being that its replacement on the right looks more ideological still - and may of course finish up going the same way.
@isam posted recently about his bad bet on Starmer winning seats last year, because Starmer is so lacking in either charisma or coherence. An example perhaps of the betting corollory to the stock market aphorism "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent".
I think we all know that Farage will be a disaster as PM but that doesnt mean that he won't get the gig. Sensible Tories would never support him in the event of a Reform minority government. It would be the end of them.
(If you are triggered by what appears to be my catchphrase, look away now)
What the "Starmer is awful, he'll never be PM" bet missed was that someone had to win in 2024, and everyone else was clearly even worse. That was as true on the Labour benches as in the other parties.
Starmer has no fans, which is why none of his fans have tried to explain his poor polling. Heck, I don't think he expected, or particularly wanted, to be PM in 2020. It was only the multiple pileup of clown cars by the Conservatives that gave him the opportunity. And that opportunity was always a chalice with unusual skull-and-crossbones markings.
Right now, his job is to absorb as much of the toxicity heading the British government's way, and see which of the next generation of ministers is any good. They can take over in 2028, and then the game is afoot again.
Until then, we all have to wait. Unfortunate for us, and for him, but there we are.
Well, I had the bet before partygate was revealed for the second time (the first was in The Times the day after the cake, but no one cared then), so the incumbent had a great chance of winning. I ran into a black swan which allowed Starmer a walkover, but it happens
Which black swan? There was a whole flock of them surely?
The collective nouns for swans in the UK vary depending on their location: a bevy or herd for swans on the ground, a bank for those at the water's edge, and a wedge for those in flight. Other terms include a flight or game.
In terms of defection watch, it is very much an insiders market. Also more likely to be some obscure back-bencher than someone like Braverman.
There may also be other defections, for example Labour to Green, or Your Party to Green, Your Party seeming to be as rancourous as Reform.
One could posit a correlation between more ideological politics and more infighting, on the basis that practical, moderate pragmatic politicians are more used to compromises with others and with the world as it actually is.
The demise of the Tory Party essentially derives from the triumph of ideology over pragmatism, the irony being that its replacement on the right looks more ideological still - and may of course finish up going the same way.
@isam posted recently about his bad bet on Starmer winning seats last year, because Starmer is so lacking in either charisma or coherence. An example perhaps of the betting corollory to the stock market aphorism "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent".
I think we all know that Farage will be a disaster as PM but that doesnt mean that he won't get the gig. Sensible Tories would never support him in the event of a Reform minority government. It would be the end of them.
(If you are triggered by what appears to be my catchphrase, look away now)
What the "Starmer is awful, he'll never be PM" bet missed was that someone had to win in 2024, and everyone else was clearly even worse. That was as true on the Labour benches as in the other parties.
Starmer has no fans, which is why none of his fans have tried to explain his poor polling. Heck, I don't think he expected, or particularly wanted, to be PM in 2020. It was only the multiple pileup of clown cars by the Conservatives that gave him the opportunity. And that opportunity was always a chalice with unusual skull-and-crossbones markings.
Right now, his job is to absorb as much of the toxicity heading the British government's way, and see which of the next generation of ministers is any good. They can take over in 2028, and then the game is afoot again.
Until then, we all have to wait. Unfortunate for us, and for him, but there we are.
Well, I had the bet before partygate was revealed for the second time (the first was in The Times the day after the cake, but no one cared then), so the incumbent had a great chance of winning. I ran into a black swan which allowed Starmer a walkover, but it happens
Which black swan? There was a whole flock of them surely?
The collective nouns for swans in the UK vary depending on their location: a bevy or herd for swans on the ground, a bank for those at the water's edge, and a wedge for those in flight. Other terms include a flight or game.
Not a flock.
It is a well-known fact that 99 per cent of collective nouns were made up by bored lexicographers at the OUP staff Christmas party. No-one in real life talks about a murder of crows or a gate of former prime ministers.
In terms of defection watch, it is very much an insiders market. Also more likely to be some obscure back-bencher than someone like Braverman.
There may also be other defections, for example Labour to Green, or Your Party to Green, Your Party seeming to be as rancourous as Reform.
One could posit a correlation between more ideological politics and more infighting, on the basis that practical, moderate pragmatic politicians are more used to compromises with others and with the world as it actually is.
The demise of the Tory Party essentially derives from the triumph of ideology over pragmatism, the irony being that its replacement on the right looks more ideological still - and may of course finish up going the same way.
@isam posted recently about his bad bet on Starmer winning seats last year, because Starmer is so lacking in either charisma or coherence. An example perhaps of the betting corollory to the stock market aphorism "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent".
I think we all know that Farage will be a disaster as PM but that doesnt mean that he won't get the gig. Sensible Tories would never support him in the event of a Reform minority government. It would be the end of them.
(If you are triggered by what appears to be my catchphrase, look away now)
What the "Starmer is awful, he'll never be PM" bet missed was that someone had to win in 2024, and everyone else was clearly even worse. That was as true on the Labour benches as in the other parties.
Starmer has no fans, which is why none of his fans have tried to explain his poor polling. Heck, I don't think he expected, or particularly wanted, to be PM in 2020. It was only the multiple pileup of clown cars by the Conservatives that gave him the opportunity. And that opportunity was always a chalice with unusual skull-and-crossbones markings.
Right now, his job is to absorb as much of the toxicity heading the British government's way, and see which of the next generation of ministers is any good. They can take over in 2028, and then the game is afoot again.
Until then, we all have to wait. Unfortunate for us, and for him, but there we are.
Well, I had the bet before partygate was revealed for the second time (the first was in The Times the day after the cake, but no one cared then), so the incumbent had a great chance of winning. I ran into a black swan which allowed Starmer a walkover, but it happens
Which black swan? There was a whole flock of them surely?
The collective nouns for swans in the UK vary depending on their location: a bevy or herd for swans on the ground, a bank for those at the water's edge, and a wedge for those in flight. Other terms include a flight or game.
Not a flock.
It is a well-known fact that 99 per cent of collective nouns were made up by bored lexicographers at the OUP staff Christmas party. No-one in real life talks about a murder of crows or a gate of former prime ministers.
'The culture secretary has apologised for breaking rules by failing to declare she had received donations from the man she picked to be England's new football regulator.
On Thursday, the commissioner for public appointments published a report, external which found that David Kogan had made two separate donations of £1,450 to Lisa Nandy, when she was running to be Labour leader in 2020.
Speaking to the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Nandy said: "We didn't meet the highest standards - that is on me."
The Conservatives have said Nandy's actions were "a serious breach of public trust" and called for a further investigation into Sir Keir Starmer, who also received donations from Mr Kogan.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqjwp0rq7d7o
So why is he still the regulator, and she still the Culture Secretary? Is this not a breach of the Ministerial code?
This isn't like Reeves forgetting to get a rental licence, this is clearly someone giving preferment to an individual (a Labour donor to boot) who benefited them, and failing to declare it.
Last time Kemi and Keir lay the first political wreathes?
My view - Badenoch possibly. Starmer probably not. He's got at least another 18 months yet I'd say.
If Starmer does truly horribly in the locals in May, then he's under big pressure. Perversely, it may give Kemi some cover if the Tories do badly, but (looking at Labour) not that badly...
Whatever happens to Starmer after the May elections couldn't happen to a more dishonest, devious, damaging, incompetent, ruthless bastard.
If Labour want to break their tradition of only deposing competent leaders, he would be an excellent one to start with.
Returning to Macbook Airs, is there much difference between one with an M2 chip and an M4 chip? Everything else is identical - memory size, display etc.
The former are available at £699 refurbished, the latter £879 new.
My gut feel is that the new one would be worth the 25% extra.
The other thing is support life. For comparison, see below. Note that no M series has come to end of support yet.
Model version
Chip type
First appeared
OS support ceased
Support lifetime (yrs mo)
Last supported macOS
MacBook Pro (13" Mid 2010)
Intel
Apr 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 6 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15) (est)
MacBook Air (Late 2010)
Intel
Oct 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 0 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Early 2011)
Intel
Feb 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 8 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2011)
Intel
Jul 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 3 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Air (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2012)
Intel
Oct 2012
Oct 2023 (est)
11 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2013)
Intel
Oct 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2013)
Intel
Jun 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2014)
Intel
Jul 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 3 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2014)
Intel
Apr 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 6 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2015)
Intel
May 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 5 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2016)
Intel
Apr 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 6 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (Touch Bar 2016–17)
Intel
Oct 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook (12" 2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Air (2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (2018–19 Intel)
Intel
Jul 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Retina 2018)
Intel
Oct 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Pro (16" 2019)
Intel
Nov 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 11 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (2019)
Intel
Jul 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
6 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Intel 2020)
Intel
Mar 2020
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 7 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (13" M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (14"/16" M1 Pro/Max)
M1 Pro / M1 Max
Oct 2021
–
3 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Air (M2)
M2
Jun 2022
–
2 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (M2/M3 family)
M2 / M3
2022–24
–
≤3 yrs (ongoing)
–
Is the battery user-replaceable? Got caught out on that with Microsoft with their first Surface Book laptop. The bastards glued it in.
No - the recent Macs don't have user replaceable batteries.
Interesting. And to me a major reason not to buy, on first sight. How long do they usually last?
Good luck trying to find any laptop with a replaceable battery nowadays and even if you did I suspect it would be cheaper to get you Mac one replaced either at apple or on the high street
Suella's greatest crime seems to have been being right.
She's a nasty woman, her homelessness is a lifestyle choice comments were vile, given the number of people with mental health/ex military people who are homeless, very few people choose to be homeless. I know somebody who was made homeless through no fault of her own, her partner had got himself into debt, and they banks/lender repossessed the property, she was 'lucky' because her family and friends stepped up, not everybody has that support system.
I told Boris Johnson that one of his proudest achievements as PM was to end rough sleeping at the start of the pandemic, one of his biggest failures was to ensure rough sleeping was a thing of the past.
A couple of points
- ex-military rough sleepers. A couple of years ago, a military charity, working with the military did a survey. What they found was - of the genuine ex-military, something like 95%+ among rough sleepers had been let go during *training*. For having suspected mental health issues. That’s interesting because that suggests an opportunity to help earlier.
- simply stuffing rough sleepers into hotels etc does very little. The issues that lead to people sleeping in cardboard boxes are not easy to solve
- the bigger problem is homelessness. Which isn’t rough sleeping. But not having a permanent home - see rooms in shitty “B&Bs” paid for by the council.
It’s almost as if a significant part of the problem can be fixed by allowing a lot more houses to be built.
The homelessness - people without a permanent home - yes
Rough sleeping is harder. Essentially it’s drugs + alcohol + mental health + {something} that makes people pretty much incapable of steadily living inside. Just talk to people who run shelters about what happens.
In The Goode Olde Dayz, people like that were locked up when the place was getting untidy. Otherwise they were Tramps & Vagabonds.
Bombing them up on pharmaceuticals to make them docile won’t work - the drugs don’t make them feel good. The reverse in fact. So they stop taking them. And forcing people, against their will, to take such drugs is pretty much impossible, legally. At least these days.
So we can’t shove them in a madhouse (prison for the mentally unfixable) can’t turn them into zombies…
What’s left is trying to provide an avenue off the street for the small number who can/will get out if that life.
Which is why I support the charities that do that
I don't agree about locking people away, nor forcing medication upon them. It should only be done in extreme circumstances, but if it must be done to protect the public, it must be done. It's completely inchorent philosophically to suggest otherwise, because it introduces a hierarchy of human rights - the human rights of the insane to freedom being placed above those of the sane to life.
Wow! Yesterday, the WaPo came down hard on New York's mayor-elect:
Mamdani ran an upbeat campaign, with a nice-guy demeanor and perpetual smile papering over a long history of divisive and demagogic statements. New Yorkers periodically checking in on politics could understandably believe that he simply wanted to bring the city together and make it more affordable. That interpretation became much harder after his victory speech.
Across 23 angry minutes laced with identity politics and seething with resentment, Mamdani abandoned his cool disposition and made clear that his view of politics isn’t about unity. It isn’t about letting people build better lives for themselves. It is about identifying class enemies — from landlords who take advantage of tenants to “the bosses” who exploit workers — and then crushing them. His goal is not to increase wealth but to dole it out to favored groups. The word “growth” didn’t appear in the speech, but President Donald Trump garnered eight mentions.
A New York City politician fibbing during their campaign? I am shocked, shocked!
(I'll let others listen to that speech, since I have much else to do these days.)
Suella's greatest crime seems to have been being right.
She's a nasty woman, her homelessness is a lifestyle choice comments were vile, given the number of people with mental health/ex military people who are homeless, very few people choose to be homeless. I know somebody who was made homeless through no fault of her own, her partner had got himself into debt, and they banks/lender repossessed the property, she was 'lucky' because her family and friends stepped up, not everybody has that support system.
I told Boris Johnson that one of his proudest achievements as PM was to end rough sleeping at the start of the pandemic, one of his biggest failures was to ensure rough sleeping was a thing of the past.
A couple of points
- ex-military rough sleepers. A couple of years ago, a military charity, working with the military did a survey. What they found was - of the genuine ex-military, something like 95%+ among rough sleepers had been let go during *training*. For having suspected mental health issues. That’s interesting because that suggests an opportunity to help earlier.
- simply stuffing rough sleepers into hotels etc does very little. The issues that lead to people sleeping in cardboard boxes are not easy to solve
- the bigger problem is homelessness. Which isn’t rough sleeping. But not having a permanent home - see rooms in shitty “B&Bs” paid for by the council.
It’s almost as if a significant part of the problem can be fixed by allowing a lot more houses to be built.
The homelessness - people without a permanent home - yes
Rough sleeping is harder. Essentially it’s drugs + alcohol + mental health + {something} that makes people pretty much incapable of steadily living inside. Just talk to people who run shelters about what happens.
In The Goode Olde Dayz, people like that were locked up when the place was getting untidy. Otherwise they were Tramps & Vagabonds.
Bombing them up on pharmaceuticals to make them docile won’t work - the drugs don’t make them feel good. The reverse in fact. So they stop taking them. And forcing people, against their will, to take such drugs is pretty much impossible, legally. At least these days.
So we can’t shove them in a madhouse (prison for the mentally unfixable) can’t turn them into zombies…
What’s left is trying to provide an avenue off the street for the small number who can/will get out if that life.
Which is why I support the charities that do that
I don't agree about locking people away, nor forcing medication upon them. It should only be done in extreme circumstances, but if it must be done to protect the public, it must be done. It's completely inchorent philosophically to suggest otherwise, because it introduces a hierarchy of human rights - the human rights of the insane to freedom being placed above those of the sane to life.
You can lock them up, if they are a danger to themselves or others. The ones that are dangerous are generally locked up (sectioned)
99.9% of “street people” are not a danger to anyone. Untidy, yes.
Wow! Yesterday, the WaPo came down hard on New York's mayor-elect:
Mamdani ran an upbeat campaign, with a nice-guy demeanor and perpetual smile papering over a long history of divisive and demagogic statements. New Yorkers periodically checking in on politics could understandably believe that he simply wanted to bring the city together and make it more affordable. That interpretation became much harder after his victory speech.
Across 23 angry minutes laced with identity politics and seething with resentment, Mamdani abandoned his cool disposition and made clear that his view of politics isn’t about unity. It isn’t about letting people build better lives for themselves. It is about identifying class enemies — from landlords who take advantage of tenants to “the bosses” who exploit workers — and then crushing them. His goal is not to increase wealth but to dole it out to favored groups. The word “growth” didn’t appear in the speech, but President Donald Trump garnered eight mentions.
A New York City politician fibbing during their campaign? I am shocked, shocked!
(I'll let others listen to that speech, since I have much else to do these days.)
Isn't it also that the WaPo has gone more-or-less Tonto in the last year and a bit?
Returning to Macbook Airs, is there much difference between one with an M2 chip and an M4 chip? Everything else is identical - memory size, display etc.
The former are available at £699 refurbished, the latter £879 new.
My gut feel is that the new one would be worth the 25% extra.
The other thing is support life. For comparison, see below. Note that no M series has come to end of support yet.
Model version
Chip type
First appeared
OS support ceased
Support lifetime (yrs mo)
Last supported macOS
MacBook Pro (13" Mid 2010)
Intel
Apr 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 6 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15) (est)
MacBook Air (Late 2010)
Intel
Oct 2010
Oct 2022 (est)
12 yrs 0 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Early 2011)
Intel
Feb 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 8 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2011)
Intel
Jul 2011
Oct 2022 (est)
11 yrs 3 mo
macOS High Sierra (10.13)
MacBook Pro (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Air (Mid 2012)
Intel
Jun 2012
Oct 2022 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Catalina (10.15)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2012)
Intel
Oct 2012
Oct 2023 (est)
11 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Late 2013)
Intel
Oct 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 0 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Mid 2013)
Intel
Jun 2013
Oct 2023 (est)
10 yrs 4 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2014)
Intel
Jul 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 3 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2014)
Intel
Apr 2014
Oct 2023 (est)
9 yrs 6 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Pro (Retina Mid 2015)
Intel
May 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 5 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook Air (Early 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2015)
Intel
Mar 2015
Oct 2023 (est)
8 yrs 7 mo
macOS Monterey (12) (est)
MacBook (12" 2016)
Intel
Apr 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 6 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (Touch Bar 2016–17)
Intel
Oct 2016
Oct 2024 (est)
8 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook (12" 2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Air (2017)
Intel
Jun 2017
Oct 2024 (est)
7 yrs 4 mo
macOS Sonoma (14) (est)
MacBook Pro (2018–19 Intel)
Intel
Jul 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Retina 2018)
Intel
Oct 2018
Oct 2025 (est)
7 yrs 0 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Pro (16" 2019)
Intel
Nov 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 11 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (2019)
Intel
Jul 2019
Oct 2025 (est)
6 yrs 3 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (Intel 2020)
Intel
Mar 2020
Oct 2025 (est)
5 yrs 7 mo
macOS Sequoia (15) (est)
MacBook Air (M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (13" M1)
M1
Nov 2020
–
4 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (14"/16" M1 Pro/Max)
M1 Pro / M1 Max
Oct 2021
–
3 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Air (M2)
M2
Jun 2022
–
2 yrs (ongoing)
–
MacBook Pro (M2/M3 family)
M2 / M3
2022–24
–
≤3 yrs (ongoing)
–
Is the battery user-replaceable? Got caught out on that with Microsoft with their first Surface Book laptop. The bastards glued it in.
No - the recent Macs don't have user replaceable batteries.
Interesting. And to me a major reason not to buy, on first sight. How long do they usually last?
Good luck trying to find any laptop with a replaceable battery nowadays and even if you did I suspect it would be cheaper to get you Mac one replaced either at apple or on the high street
Our Lenovos take about 30 sec to replace their batteries. Unscrew a panel, pull out old battery, slip new one in, replace panel. I checked before buying.
In terms of defection watch, it is very much an insiders market. Also more likely to be some obscure back-bencher than someone like Braverman.
There may also be other defections, for example Labour to Green, or Your Party to Green, Your Party seeming to be as rancourous as Reform.
One could posit a correlation between more ideological politics and more infighting, on the basis that practical, moderate pragmatic politicians are more used to compromises with others and with the world as it actually is.
The demise of the Tory Party essentially derives from the triumph of ideology over pragmatism, the irony being that its replacement on the right looks more ideological still - and may of course finish up going the same way.
@isam posted recently about his bad bet on Starmer winning seats last year, because Starmer is so lacking in either charisma or coherence. An example perhaps of the betting corollory to the stock market aphorism "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent".
I think we all know that Farage will be a disaster as PM but that doesnt mean that he won't get the gig. Sensible Tories would never support him in the event of a Reform minority government. It would be the end of them.
(If you are triggered by what appears to be my catchphrase, look away now)
What the "Starmer is awful, he'll never be PM" bet missed was that someone had to win in 2024, and everyone else was clearly even worse. That was as true on the Labour benches as in the other parties.
Starmer has no fans, which is why none of his fans have tried to explain his poor polling. Heck, I don't think he expected, or particularly wanted, to be PM in 2020. It was only the multiple pileup of clown cars by the Conservatives that gave him the opportunity. And that opportunity was always a chalice with unusual skull-and-crossbones markings.
Right now, his job is to absorb as much of the toxicity heading the British government's way, and see which of the next generation of ministers is any good. They can take over in 2028, and then the game is afoot again.
Until then, we all have to wait. Unfortunate for us, and for him, but there we are.
Well, I had the bet before partygate was revealed for the second time (the first was in The Times the day after the cake, but no one cared then), so the incumbent had a great chance of winning. I ran into a black swan which allowed Starmer a walkover, but it happens
Which black swan? There was a whole flock of them surely?
Partygate. If that hadn’t happened he’d probably still be PM now.
Suella's greatest crime seems to have been being right.
She's a nasty woman, her homelessness is a lifestyle choice comments were vile, given the number of people with mental health/ex military people who are homeless, very few people choose to be homeless. I know somebody who was made homeless through no fault of her own, her partner had got himself into debt, and they banks/lender repossessed the property, she was 'lucky' because her family and friends stepped up, not everybody has that support system.
I told Boris Johnson that one of his proudest achievements as PM was to end rough sleeping at the start of the pandemic, one of his biggest failures was to ensure rough sleeping was a thing of the past.
A couple of points
- ex-military rough sleepers. A couple of years ago, a military charity, working with the military did a survey. What they found was - of the genuine ex-military, something like 95%+ among rough sleepers had been let go during *training*. For having suspected mental health issues. That’s interesting because that suggests an opportunity to help earlier.
- simply stuffing rough sleepers into hotels etc does very little. The issues that lead to people sleeping in cardboard boxes are not easy to solve
- the bigger problem is homelessness. Which isn’t rough sleeping. But not having a permanent home - see rooms in shitty “B&Bs” paid for by the council.
It’s almost as if a significant part of the problem can be fixed by allowing a lot more houses to be built.
Fine but the homeless generally can't afford the £600k for a new flat near West Ham station or even rent a small place at Fresh Wharf. IF you are going to build for the homeless and that's not always the solution, then make the homes available for nothing and if that means a developer has to take a haircut, so be it.
The developer builds the property and gives (not sells) the dwelling to the local council - perhaps 10% of all new builds could be free social housing for the homeless.
Let's see the developers step up and do their bit - perhaps we could offer some form of tax relief as a carrot.
This betrays a complete ignorance of supply and demand.
If supply increases then it does not matter if the supply increases at the top or bottom of the market as people move through the market.
Build ten million new 5 or 6 bed mansions as a ludicrous reductio ad absurdum and not one homeless person will buy them.
But people living in a 4 bed move into a 5 bed.
People living in a 3 bed move into the 4 bed.
People living in a 1 bed or a flat get a 3 bed.
And the homeless can get an affordable 1 bed or flat.
Can we take a moment to consider the brilliance of this Matt cartoon. It isn't just that the Guardian doesn't have an equivalent of Matt, it's that they wouldn't want one. Crude depictions of right wing people is more their level.
Suella's greatest crime seems to have been being right.
She's a nasty woman, her homelessness is a lifestyle choice comments were vile, given the number of people with mental health/ex military people who are homeless, very few people choose to be homeless. I know somebody who was made homeless through no fault of her own, her partner had got himself into debt, and they banks/lender repossessed the property, she was 'lucky' because her family and friends stepped up, not everybody has that support system.
I told Boris Johnson that one of his proudest achievements as PM was to end rough sleeping at the start of the pandemic, one of his biggest failures was to ensure rough sleeping was a thing of the past.
A couple of points
- ex-military rough sleepers. A couple of years ago, a military charity, working with the military did a survey. What they found was - of the genuine ex-military, something like 95%+ among rough sleepers had been let go during *training*. For having suspected mental health issues. That’s interesting because that suggests an opportunity to help earlier.
- simply stuffing rough sleepers into hotels etc does very little. The issues that lead to people sleeping in cardboard boxes are not easy to solve
- the bigger problem is homelessness. Which isn’t rough sleeping. But not having a permanent home - see rooms in shitty “B&Bs” paid for by the council.
It’s almost as if a significant part of the problem can be fixed by allowing a lot more houses to be built.
The homelessness - people without a permanent home - yes
Rough sleeping is harder. Essentially it’s drugs + alcohol + mental health + {something} that makes people pretty much incapable of steadily living inside. Just talk to people who run shelters about what happens.
In The Goode Olde Dayz, people like that were locked up when the place was getting untidy. Otherwise they were Tramps & Vagabonds.
Bombing them up on pharmaceuticals to make them docile won’t work - the drugs don’t make them feel good. The reverse in fact. So they stop taking them. And forcing people, against their will, to take such drugs is pretty much impossible, legally. At least these days.
So we can’t shove them in a madhouse (prison for the mentally unfixable) can’t turn them into zombies…
What’s left is trying to provide an avenue off the street for the small number who can/will get out if that life.
Which is why I support the charities that do that
I don't agree about locking people away, nor forcing medication upon them. It should only be done in extreme circumstances, but if it must be done to protect the public, it must be done. It's completely inchorent philosophically to suggest otherwise, because it introduces a hierarchy of human rights - the human rights of the insane to freedom being placed above those of the sane to life.
If they have committed no crime then yes of course their liberty comes first.
If they commit a crime, they should be incarcerated.
Comments
https://x.com/RepMTG/status/1987140608159359346?s=20
On Thursday, the commissioner for public appointments published a report, external which found that David Kogan had made two separate donations of £1,450 to Lisa Nandy, when she was running to be Labour leader in 2020.
Speaking to the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Nandy said: "We didn't meet the highest standards - that is on me."
The Conservatives have said Nandy's actions were "a serious breach of public trust" and called for a further investigation into Sir Keir Starmer, who also received donations from Mr Kogan.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqjwp0rq7d7o
Don't imagine for a nanosecond New Zealand doesn't have all the same problems as everywhere else - homelessness is a big issue even in smallish places like Napier and Hamilton let alone Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.
From what little I know of the homeless, a lot of the problems stem from mental health and addiction and these need time as much as money to be overcome. The homeless are an extreme end of what I think is a much larger problem of dependency and mental health issues which affect, I'd imagine, hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in the UK.
I also don't want to ignore those who are fleeing sexual and physical abuse and have to escape for fear of their lives even if that means ending up on the streets.
The Coalition, to its credit, did some good work on mental health and we know one of the side effects of the pandemic was a surge in the nunbers reporting mental health problems yet unfortunately there's all too often a traditional cynicism if not outright hostility to those with such issues (we see it from a few on here).
Simply moving all the homeless somewhere else because you don't want them to make the place look ugly is pathetic and a sign of political failure.
The developer builds the property and gives (not sells) the dwelling to the local council - perhaps 10% of all new builds could be free social housing for the homeless.
Let's see the developers step up and do their bit - perhaps we could offer some form of tax relief as a carrot.
She’s a decidedly mediocre politician and did not excel in govt.
If reform really wants to win over the red wall being cram packed full of former, largely failed, Tories is not going to help them and gives Labour plenty of lines of attack.
B A Y
B A Y
B A Y C I T Y
R O double L E R S
Bay city rollers are the best.
Yet within a year they were gone.
If Farage had been capable of vetting his candidates and holding his Parliamentary Party together, he'd have 6 or 7 MPS now and would be at the heart of it.
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/remembrance-sunday-nigel-farage-cenotaph-wreath
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
"For the Fallen" by Laurence Binyon, 1914.
Lest we forget.
It's also economically unviable - the cost of materials and labour is so high that the equilibrium cost of housing is always going to be too high for these kinds of individuals, so givernment intervention is always going to be necessary. The real issue is economic inequality and lack of opportunities rather than housing per se.
I’m amazed he’s there. I’d have thought he’d not want to partake.
I still think it requires a lot to go right for them, in the next 24 months or so, but there's a chance it looks like the incompetent old guard have deserted for Reform and the Tories can present themselves as genuinely the new brooms. That isn't something that happens overnight but if Reform do start to decline then things like this will help them.
I am now very firmly of the opinion that the Tories could do without a leadership contest right now.
https://www.ppu.org.uk/news/green-party-leadership-steps-support-white-poppy
Rough sleeping is harder. Essentially it’s drugs + alcohol + mental health + {something} that makes people pretty much incapable of steadily living inside. Just talk to people who run shelters about what happens.
In The Goode Olde Dayz, people like that were locked up when the place was getting untidy. Otherwise they were Tramps & Vagabonds.
Bombing them up on pharmaceuticals to make them docile won’t work - the drugs don’t make them feel good. The reverse in fact. So they stop taking them. And forcing people, against their will, to take such drugs is pretty much impossible, legally. At least these days.
So we can’t shove them in a madhouse (prison for the mentally unfixable) can’t turn them into zombies…
What’s left is trying to provide an avenue off the street for the small number who can/will get out if that life.
Which is why I support the charities that do that
The main thing I knew about him, apart from his tits hypnotism is he flounced from the Lib Dem’s when not selected for a seat. Richmond IIRC.
So, perhaps, you are right and he is quite sharp, or is now.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15273805/British-motorists-taxed-twice-driving-abroad.html
War memorial in Zhytomyr, Ukraine. August 2025, in a city of 250,000 to the West of Kiev outside the war zone.
There’s more than 500 photographs on display, many of them younger than me, many of them young enough to be my sons, and I say a prayer for them today.
No, wait, they did this. Which is why new starts in London have collapsed. And the government is talking about allowing zero reduced priced flats in some builds - 10% in others.
What we need is a holistic approach to what we want from buildings. Then a simple statement of these requirements. And some simple laws and regulations to achieve them. Backed by effective enforcement.
At the moment we have a large number of flats that were built under the old way of doing things - literal metric tons of paperwork. Some are clad in low grade firelighters. Others are structurally deficient. Others (many) have chronic damp, from compliance with stupid regulations on ventilation vs EPC - practically malicious compliance.
And thousands upon thousands of pages of bullshit about how this is all awesome.
A friend who found his block was structurally deficient, dug into the records - well, he being on the committee for the block got lawyers and engineers, paid for by the developer to look. They found no evidence that samples were taken of the concrete, during the pours, for testing. Huge block of flats - 100s of residents.
Joseph Bazalgette in 18 fucking 60 was having cement tests done. You pour cement into a small mold. You let it set at a set temperature for x hours. You then test it - tensile strength, compressive. Really simple stuff.
More importantly it highlights the exact opposite of this issue, as demonstrated by Switzerland, of the need to deal appropriately with foreign-registered cars on British roads. Not too difficult to imagine wholesale abuse if countries such as Ireland operate a different system.
Why no mention of the M6 toll, where dual charging will also apply, or the various bridges?
For most of the other housing-related problems, the only answer is to build millions of houses, and reduce the bureaucracy and cost involved in doing so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEvVSpN0BXg
https://www.advocate.com/politics/zohran-mamdani-victory-speech-transgender
The former are available at £699 refurbished, the latter £879 new.
My gut feel is that the new one would be worth the 25% extra.
First, of course there is Epstein (although I'm sceptical until we see proof).
Second, SCOTUS is deciding whether the President does in fact have the power to impose tariffs. If that falls, so does most recent American foreign and trade policy.
Third, it's the economy, stupid, and America has its own cost of living crisis. Even Elon Musk had to put in for a payrise.
Fourth, the continued shutdown raises questions about organising piss-ups in breweries.
Fifth, the success of Democrats in winning elections in the last few days threatens the GOP hegemony.
Sixth, Trump is getting old, and some have questioned his marble-count.
Seventh, even if all goes well, Trump is term-limited to leave office, which means his party must soon start looking for his successor.
This sense that Trump is, one way or another, on his way out, might explain why MTG has applied to rejoin the sensible party.
Yup - the cost of housing is a function of the cost of housing. Multiplied by the regulatory burden.
One thing to watch is memory - 8Gb was the standard / lowest available for the M2 era Airs & that’s really not enough in the modern era. M4s come with a minimum of 16Gb as standard IIRC.
About me
: 😭
Edit: the 2020 M1 Macbook Air I am typing this on has been used for several hours every day on battery and I have just checked - battery has 83% of capacity when new.
As long as the defining question of elections is about money, you can put Gerive and Sunak in one party, Blair and Kinnock in another, and it sort of coheres. No, they don't agree on everything, but each party agrees with itself more than it agrees with the Otherlot Party.
Trouble is, now elections aren't so much about money. Partly, there's more of it than in generations before, partly because the extremes of 83 percent tax and 15 percent tax have been ruled out as not leading to nice places to live, partly because the remaining question (there is a gap between what we want the government to do and what we will cheerily pay for it) is too painful to contemplate. But the big question has been approximately solved and we all have it better than Macmillan's 'never had it so good' generation, let alone the generations we have just been remembering.
So, instead, politics is about society. That has already kippered the Conservative Party. There have always been metropolitan liberals and provincial hangers'n'floggers, and they have little uniting them any more. The latter have moved to Reform and the former are reduced to making podcasts because nobody else wants them. Something similar is happening in Labour- the tension between their ancestral Red Wall heartland, their Islington thinkbase, and the youngish suburban graduates who actually voted for them.
No reason why the harder left should be immune. Greens tend towards ultrawoke, Gaza Indies... don't. And at some point, Reform are going to have to resolve whether they are against the Nanny State, or all for Nanny giving naughty children a sound spanking.
Never seen a need to replace a battery for lifespan. A couple of people had defective (swelling) batteries replaced under warranty.
That’s assuming a 5-7 year lifespan. I know a few people with 10 year old Mac laptops and they seem fine, as well.
Edit: thanks for the comments I mean - not blaming you for my laptop ...
https://www.argos.co.uk/product/4659718
Are these touch screen? I will miss that from my Lenovo Yoga.
I guess it depends what you mean by 'user-replaceable' Personally I'd rather pay someone £20 to do this but, you can do it yourself if you want (not that you'll ever need to):
https://www.ifixit.com/Wiki/MacBook_Battery_Replacement
Polanski has a piece in today's Observer. Only mentions 'climate' once and does not mention the environment or sustainability at all. Most of article is waxing lyrically about how wonderful NY's new mayor is and how we need to tax the rich and take wealth and redistribute.
How long before there is a split and an Ecology Party is formed?
Though my thinking was that you can't repeatedly fly that close to the Sun without getting burnt. As Boris had many times before. Eventually, it was bound to be fatal.
Had it not been partygate + Patersongate + Pinchergrate, it would have been Patersongate + Pinchergrate + the gate of scandal yet to come.
And from the very beginning, it was obvious he couldn't bring himself to leave a political heir, let alone a spare.
Not a flock.
Ilford War Memorial this morning. Young Wes in attendance if you look closely.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/a-drudge-of-lexicographers-presents-collective-nouns
This isn't like Reeves forgetting to get a rental licence, this is clearly someone giving preferment to an individual (a Labour donor to boot) who benefited them, and failing to declare it.
I don't see how an apology cuts it in this case.
If Labour want to break their tradition of only deposing competent leaders, he would be an excellent one to start with.
(I'll let others listen to that speech, since I have much else to do these days.)
99.9% of “street people” are not a danger to anyone. Untidy, yes.
https://x.com/TomHCalver/status/1987456529361252743?s=19
(I'll let others listen to that speech, since I have much else to do these days.)
Isn't it also that the WaPo has gone more-or-less Tonto in the last year and a bit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAI6yIZI3rg
Our Lenovos take about 30 sec to replace their batteries. Unscrew a panel, pull out old battery, slip new one in, replace panel. I checked before buying.
https://x.com/peterstefanovi2/status/1987449732097061100?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
If supply increases then it does not matter if the supply increases at the top or bottom of the market as people move through the market.
Build ten million new 5 or 6 bed mansions as a ludicrous reductio ad absurdum and not one homeless person will buy them.
But people living in a 4 bed move into a 5 bed.
People living in a 3 bed move into the 4 bed.
People living in a 1 bed or a flat get a 3 bed.
And the homeless can get an affordable 1 bed or flat.
Millions win. The homeless and many, many more.
Build quality, not shitholes.
Can we take a moment to consider the brilliance of this Matt cartoon. It isn't just that the Guardian doesn't have an equivalent of Matt, it's that they wouldn't want one. Crude depictions of right wing people is more their level.
If they commit a crime, they should be incarcerated.