3 former Tory MPs, Jonathan Gullis, former MP for Stoke North, Lia Nici who was MP for Bolton West and Chris Green who represented Great Grimsby have defected to ReformUK. No connection at all to the fact they now think Reform are most likely to be able to beat Labour in the seats they lost in 2024 but won under Boris in 2019 I am sure https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15341443/Defection-Reform-Tories-MP-minister-Gullis-trust-voters.html
Those weren't top MPs, but it's positive for Reform - gives them a little experience and 4 candidates who need minimal vetting.
I have only heard of Gullis but those who want to join Reform may well regret it in due course
Also how can Reform pose as a refreshing alternative to the Tories when they are composed increasingly of Conservative retreads? If you're going to vote for the Conservatives you might as well vote for the version that isn't Russia-adjacent.
Another reality check for the 'why can't we all just get along' tendency.
Putin signed a decree this week escalating efforts to erase all traces of Ukrainian language, culture, and national identity in areas currently under Russian occupation. Hopes for a compromise peace are delusional. Putin is determined to destroy Ukraine https://x.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1995069657066463459
ISW's comments on Putin's position - essentially he is all in as failure would be terminal for him. The WH will know this from their own sources so any peace plan is doomed. Continued support for Ukraine is the route to peace but at the cost of regime change. Perhaps the fear is what happens (again) to all those nukes when there is regime change and there is no central government looking after them.
Putin fears the risks and challenges associated with reintegrating veterans into Russian society and economy and thus remains unlikely to demobilize fully or rapidly — even in the event of a negotiated settlement to its war in Ukraine
It is hard to see any acceptable alternative to the continuation and enhancement of support for Ukraine to resist and if possible push back the Russian occupation. I seems such a horrible waste of life but there just seems to be no other way to do it. It is vital that the West gives sufficient support to Ukraine to allow them to prevent any further Russian advances.
Yes, even the Dim-Wit plan is unacceptable to Putin. Ukraine has to be almost completely disarmed, and reduced to a satellite. It is completely pointless, displacement activity, coming up with peace plans.
I think this is why my Eastern Ukraine idea has merits. Russia will simply not be bordered by a well-armed NATO-protected Ukraine. One can see that as a constant thread in their entire loopy strategy.
So offer to create a buffer state, that is not Ukraine, and not Russia. At the very least, that will smoke out whether Russia does just want a Russia-aligned state on its border, or whether it really just wants an ever bigger Russia.
The Eastern Ukraine idea is not on the table. Ukraine is not offering it and Putin has absorbed the occupied areas into the Russian Federation directly: in Russian legal theory they are now Russian oblasts.
I didn't say it was on the table. I am not a top diplomat or a world leader. I say it should be on the table. If neither Ukraine or Russia likes the idea, I'd say its about right.
It gives the invader a win "if we invade somewhere it becomes "neutral" ie Russian-influenced. They might then decide to go for, say, Estonia on the same basis
It's a mental idea. Massively incentivises the Russians to buy and influence elections, make life miserable for anti-Russian activists, kill off journalists, the whole package. Then you're left with a pro-Russian region and in go the tanks to liberate them.
Ukraine will only get back territories occupied by Russia if it pushes that country out by force. Currently Russia is in the slightly stronger position. Ukraine's choices are to fight on or try to get a deal based on current occupation. I would support Ukraine making either of those choices, but in their shoes I would attempt to get a deal that makes a success of the part of Ukraine Russia doesn't occupy and abandon some of the Eastern provinces as long as inhabitants have the right to move to "proper" Ukraine if they want to. The Finland solution, basically.
The defining question from the Vietnam era was "how do you ask someone to be the last one to die for a mistake?" Similarly, how long will younger generations tolerate being poorer than they have to be for a mistake? I don't see Brexit being reversed in the next five years but I think support could snowball quickly after that. Why should people tolerate the status quo just because a different electorate voted for it a decade ago?
Why? Because they can feel the warm glow of 'sovereignty' flowing through their veins, no longer under the yoke of those evil Europeans; they can see its transformative effects every day in their daily lives...
Er... or maybe not.
Lol. In five years time all three of my kids will be 18+. What has Brexit done for them except for limiting their opportunities and shrinking their earning potential?
Reeves would be in trouble if she'd given a rosier account of the nation's finances than the OBR in advance of the budget. The fact that she gave a gloomier account than the OBR means she, and Starmer, will ride this out easily.
She should, however, learn from this by shutting the fuck up in advance of her next budget. The 'leaks' did her no favours, not did the early morning speech a few weeks ago.
That people made life-changing decisions off the back of the leaks and rumours isn’t a myth.
I’ve had three separate conversations with newcomers to my part of the world in the past month. The brain drain is real, it’s fuelled in large numbers by student loan repayments and graduate unemployment, and in small numbers by relocations to avoid potential “wealth” taxes. The latter only need to be small numbers though, each one taking 7-8-9 figures out of British jurisdiction.
Another reality check for the 'why can't we all just get along' tendency.
Putin signed a decree this week escalating efforts to erase all traces of Ukrainian language, culture, and national identity in areas currently under Russian occupation. Hopes for a compromise peace are delusional. Putin is determined to destroy Ukraine https://x.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1995069657066463459
ISW's comments on Putin's position - essentially he is all in as failure would be terminal for him. The WH will know this from their own sources so any peace plan is doomed. Continued support for Ukraine is the route to peace but at the cost of regime change. Perhaps the fear is what happens (again) to all those nukes when there is regime change and there is no central government looking after them.
Putin fears the risks and challenges associated with reintegrating veterans into Russian society and economy and thus remains unlikely to demobilize fully or rapidly — even in the event of a negotiated settlement to its war in Ukraine
It is hard to see any acceptable alternative to the continuation and enhancement of support for Ukraine to resist and if possible push back the Russian occupation. I seems such a horrible waste of life but there just seems to be no other way to do it. It is vital that the West gives sufficient support to Ukraine to allow them to prevent any further Russian advances.
Yes, even the Dim-Wit plan is unacceptable to Putin. Ukraine has to be almost completely disarmed, and reduced to a satellite. It is completely pointless, displacement activity, coming up with peace plans.
I think this is why my Eastern Ukraine idea has merits. Russia will simply not be bordered by a well-armed NATO-protected Ukraine. One can see that as a constant thread in their entire loopy strategy.
So offer to create a buffer state, that is not Ukraine, and not Russia. At the very least, that will smoke out whether Russia does just want a Russia-aligned state on its border, or whether it really just wants an ever bigger Russia.
The Eastern Ukraine idea is not on the table. Ukraine is not offering it and Putin has absorbed the occupied areas into the Russian Federation directly: in Russian legal theory they are now Russian oblasts.
I didn't say it was on the table. I am not a top diplomat or a world leader. I say it should be on the table. If neither Ukraine or Russia likes the idea, I'd say its about right.
It gives the invader a win "if we invade somewhere it becomes "neutral" ie Russian-influenced. They might then decide to go for, say, Estonia on the same basis
There's no explanation of how it might be achieved, or how it might be policed. Absent those, it's just a fantasy.
Can’t be all bad; I’ve had my £10 Christmas bonus this morning!
And me. £4 net. What to spend it on? So I've just booked ten days in Martinique over Xmas.
Can't even buy a pint for £4 nowadays. Not round here anyway; £4.50's about the cheapest.
At the same time its possible to buy beer very cheaply in supermarkets. Is it any wonder pubs are dying?
In 1972, when I started drinking in London pubs beer was 14p a pint. Not a figure you forget. With inflation that is now about £1.68. IIRC there was not then a huge gulf between pub and off sales prices. The gulf is now gigantic. This all explains a lot about what is happening in the pub and hospitality sector.
I would be curious to compare the overheads such as business rates pubs faced then and now, other taxes, energy bills, and wage bills.
A quick google suggests bar staff at the time would have been on around £15 a week, so approx 100 pints a week. Not that dissimilar now, if you take £5 pint and £500 a week.
That’s interesting. National Living Wage indexed to and the driver for any increase in wages. Don’t tell the brewers
Interesting, from this article one can deduce some important economic and political anaylsis:
Someone at the Telegraph has crunched the numbers and realised they are missing out on subscriptions from remainers......
Nah, Warner's been at this for a decade.
Hilarious the excitement of remainers over a Jeremy Warner hit piece.
"I’ll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with a far-fetched Brexit proposition. It is then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of the Daily Telegraph – the Daily Telegraph ! – publishing op-eds to post around the web, pointing out to its own readers that it was all a huge mistake."
Interesting, from this article one can deduce some important economic and political anaylsis:
Someone at the Telegraph has crunched the numbers and realised they are missing out on subscriptions from remainers......
Nah, Warner's been at this for a decade.
Yep Warner was right about Brexit then and he's right about it now. Nothing's changed. Brexit doesn't suddenly become a bad thing to have done because of a lone article in the Telegraph.
Interesting, from this article one can deduce some important economic and political anaylsis:
Someone at the Telegraph has crunched the numbers and realised they are missing out on subscriptions from remainers......
Nah, Warner's been at this for a decade.
Hilarious the excitement of remainers over a Jeremy Warner hit piece.
"I’ll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with a far-fetched Brexit proposition. It is then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of the Daily Telegraph – the Daily Telegraph ! – publishing op-eds to post around the web, pointing out to its own readers that it was all a huge mistake."
Can’t be all bad; I’ve had my £10 Christmas bonus this morning!
And me. £4 net. What to spend it on? So I've just booked ten days in Martinique over Xmas.
Can't even buy a pint for £4 nowadays. Not round here anyway; £4.50's about the cheapest.
At the same time its possible to buy beer very cheaply in supermarkets. Is it any wonder pubs are dying?
In 1972, when I started drinking in London pubs beer was 14p a pint. Not a figure you forget. With inflation that is now about £1.68. IIRC there was not then a huge gulf between pub and off sales prices. The gulf is now gigantic. This all explains a lot about what is happening in the pub and hospitality sector.
I would be curious to compare the overheads such as business rates pubs faced then and now, other taxes, energy bills, and wage bills.
A quick google suggests bar staff at the time would have been on around £15 a week, so approx 100 pints a week. Not that dissimilar now, if you take £5 pint and £500 a week.
That’s interesting. National Living Wage indexed to and the driver for any increase in wages. Don’t tell the brewers
Famously child benefit, the only one paid direct to the mother, used to be linked to a price of a bottle of gin, mother's ruin.
And Kemi's withering and brutal attack on Rachel following the budget doesn't seem to have benefited the Tories quite as much as many predicted.....
Political news tends to take a couple of weeks to feed through into polling unless it’s completely apocalyptic.
Polling moves slowly, especially when it’s an increase in party support. It’s like river levels in a groundwater region. You need weeks of rainfall to recharge the aquifers first.
Another reality check for the 'why can't we all just get along' tendency.
Putin signed a decree this week escalating efforts to erase all traces of Ukrainian language, culture, and national identity in areas currently under Russian occupation. Hopes for a compromise peace are delusional. Putin is determined to destroy Ukraine https://x.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1995069657066463459
ISW's comments on Putin's position - essentially he is all in as failure would be terminal for him. The WH will know this from their own sources so any peace plan is doomed. Continued support for Ukraine is the route to peace but at the cost of regime change. Perhaps the fear is what happens (again) to all those nukes when there is regime change and there is no central government looking after them.
Putin fears the risks and challenges associated with reintegrating veterans into Russian society and economy and thus remains unlikely to demobilize fully or rapidly — even in the event of a negotiated settlement to its war in Ukraine
It is hard to see any acceptable alternative to the continuation and enhancement of support for Ukraine to resist and if possible push back the Russian occupation. I seems such a horrible waste of life but there just seems to be no other way to do it. It is vital that the West gives sufficient support to Ukraine to allow them to prevent any further Russian advances.
Yes, even the Dim-Wit plan is unacceptable to Putin. Ukraine has to be almost completely disarmed, and reduced to a satellite. It is completely pointless, displacement activity, coming up with peace plans.
I think this is why my Eastern Ukraine idea has merits. Russia will simply not be bordered by a well-armed NATO-protected Ukraine. One can see that as a constant thread in their entire loopy strategy.
So offer to create a buffer state, that is not Ukraine, and not Russia. At the very least, that will smoke out whether Russia does just want a Russia-aligned state on its border, or whether it really just wants an ever bigger Russia.
That might work with a different type of Russian leader, but I don't think Putin can walk away from this.
If Putin could walk away with the acceptance of Crimea as Russian (I don't think they'll ever give that up), and a Russian-aligned state stretching along the Russian border, he would have secured 'peace with honour'. He would be extremely unpopular with Dugin etc., but he would look serious about Russian security, and would get (I would hope) some small credit for ending the slaughter of Russian men, as well as a chance to repair the Russian economy.
Ukraine would walk away with a reduced but united country, no border with Russia or directly controlled Russian territory, and the freedom to join the EU and NATO, and re-arm with Poland as its model. That would secure Ukraine and the EU's border.
The citizens of Eastern Ukraine would have a Yanukovich style puppet Government, with certain guarantees as to their democratic rights (I concede these would be largely symbolical) and hopefully have Russia repair their devastated towns and cities as a model Russian satellite state in attempted rivalry of Ukraine proper.
Who do I think this solution work for?
Europe UK USA Ukraine Russia
Who wouldn't it work for?
China Saudi Arabia and other rival oil producers
That works for me.
It would work for someone like Bismarck. A Russian Bismarck would have concentrated overwhelming force on taking the land corridor between Donetsk and Crimea, and then offering peace.
Putin has persuaded himself that an independent Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia.
Another reality check for the 'why can't we all just get along' tendency.
Putin signed a decree this week escalating efforts to erase all traces of Ukrainian language, culture, and national identity in areas currently under Russian occupation. Hopes for a compromise peace are delusional. Putin is determined to destroy Ukraine https://x.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1995069657066463459
ISW's comments on Putin's position - essentially he is all in as failure would be terminal for him. The WH will know this from their own sources so any peace plan is doomed. Continued support for Ukraine is the route to peace but at the cost of regime change. Perhaps the fear is what happens (again) to all those nukes when there is regime change and there is no central government looking after them.
Putin fears the risks and challenges associated with reintegrating veterans into Russian society and economy and thus remains unlikely to demobilize fully or rapidly — even in the event of a negotiated settlement to its war in Ukraine
It is hard to see any acceptable alternative to the continuation and enhancement of support for Ukraine to resist and if possible push back the Russian occupation. I seems such a horrible waste of life but there just seems to be no other way to do it. It is vital that the West gives sufficient support to Ukraine to allow them to prevent any further Russian advances.
Yes, even the Dim-Wit plan is unacceptable to Putin. Ukraine has to be almost completely disarmed, and reduced to a satellite. It is completely pointless, displacement activity, coming up with peace plans.
I think this is why my Eastern Ukraine idea has merits. Russia will simply not be bordered by a well-armed NATO-protected Ukraine. One can see that as a constant thread in their entire loopy strategy.
So offer to create a buffer state, that is not Ukraine, and not Russia. At the very least, that will smoke out whether Russia does just want a Russia-aligned state on its border, or whether it really just wants an ever bigger Russia.
The Eastern Ukraine idea is not on the table. Ukraine is not offering it and Putin has absorbed the occupied areas into the Russian Federation directly: in Russian legal theory they are now Russian oblasts.
I didn't say it was on the table. I am not a top diplomat or a world leader. I say it should be on the table. If neither Ukraine or Russia likes the idea, I'd say its about right.
It gives the invader a win "if we invade somewhere it becomes "neutral" ie Russian-influenced. They might then decide to go for, say, Estonia on the same basis
There's no explanation of how it might be achieved, or how it might be policed. Absent those, it's just a fantasy.
Robert Heinlein's "Solution Unsatisfactory"? Published 1941
The story -
In the race to create atomic bombs, it turns out that you can't make nukes (yes, indeed). You can make reactors and lots of radioactive mess. So they invent radiological weapons - "dust". Dust a city. Everyone dies.
The leader of the project mounts a coup to take over the entire world. Including the United States. Because nearly anyone can create dust and it threatens the human race.
The new world government has a monopoly on dust, aircraft and other things.
In the short it is casually mentioned that to deal with some minor wars, a death zone is created between the waring nations.
So why did she lie to her Cabinet colleagues and why did Starmer connive in that lie?
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
Good morning
Austerity is living within your means
Labour have no idea how to achieve that
Neither, in all fairness, did the Conservatives when in Government.
No one has come up with a coherent and politically practical approach to getting borrowing down substantially - all we can do in the short term is slow the train. Talk of cutting £100 billion from benefits, as espoused by one or two on here, isn't going to happen even with Kemi Badenoch in charge.
I'd love to hear an alternative approach which makes sense but, as with the "small boats" (remember them?), there isn't an easy answer.
You need to do it gradually. It took Osborne 9 years to eliminate the huge structural deficit that he inherited. He managed to keep the economy growing, somewhat slowly, throughout that period by carefully calibrating the reduction each year. After Covid and Ukraine things are nearly as bad as they were in 2010 and we are starting with more than double the debt we had then as a share of GDP. It will take time, patience and skill, some things we seem to lack. A budget that actually increased borrowing for the next 3 years was a seriously bad step in the wrong direction. More debt is the last thing we need.
He added £555bn to the national debt, and lied about 'paying down the debt'.
Well, as I said you need to reduce a deficit gradually. If you try to do it all at once the economy collapses. This is why the Reform platform is an absurd joke. That gradualism meant that the borrowing did not stop in 2010, it continued all the way to 2019. And, when you think about it, if you are right about your £555bn, that is an average of £61bn a year. Reeves would give her eye teeth for that as would Sunak have.
Just because it's worse now, doesn't mean it was excusable then. If anything, it was less excusable, as despite the financial crash, we were still in far better shape back then than we are now.
I think Kemi has it right - cuts to the state, and spend the savings half on economy-boosting tax cuts, half on national debt payments.
What I don't know is how our national debt is structured (can you pay off the debt or are you just paying the interest before you get to it?), and whether our global creditors actually want to be paid off - presumably, like most lenders, they would prefer us to remain heavily indebted, but manageably so. Will they respond to a credible plan to pay them off by reducing our interest rate? I don't know, but something does tell me no.
If there was a credible plan to pay them off, then it would reduce the risk premium we are currently paying, so yes our interest rates would fall.
And since interest is one of our biggest costs, that would improve our budget balance further.
What actually happened
Investors responded to Osborne’s steady reductions in the deficit by accepting lower and lower rates on the debt.
The graph clearly shows where Gordon Brown's profligate overspending in the run-up to the GFC took borrowing up to unsustainable levels of, erm, less than it had been under the Tories.
What Brown did was to try and normalise the tax receipts from a mad boom.
When this evaporated, we had a structural deficit of something like 8-10%
The City was not really a boom as such. The problem was the economy had become unbalanced and increasingly dependent on just one sector to sustain it.
No.
There was a boom - financially unsustainable economic activity.
There was, quite definitely, a bust.
Brown was warned that derivatives were a bubble. A friend of mine, in the Bank Of England research unit, published a paper describing the problem and the probable end result. He was not the first.
Brown responded to such by sending out Ed Balls to demand that people “stop talking the country down”.
Isn't there a wonderful graph somewhere showing all of Blair/Brown's tax and spend spending was funded by the taxes from city bonuses?
I was in a few WhatsApp groups with Jonathan Gullis from 2019 onwards, if you ever wonder why the schools/education system are in such a mess it all makes perfect sense when you realise he’s an ex teacher.
Him defecting to Reform has increased the average IQ of both parties.
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
Another reality check for the 'why can't we all just get along' tendency.
Putin signed a decree this week escalating efforts to erase all traces of Ukrainian language, culture, and national identity in areas currently under Russian occupation. Hopes for a compromise peace are delusional. Putin is determined to destroy Ukraine https://x.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1995069657066463459
ISW's comments on Putin's position - essentially he is all in as failure would be terminal for him. The WH will know this from their own sources so any peace plan is doomed. Continued support for Ukraine is the route to peace but at the cost of regime change. Perhaps the fear is what happens (again) to all those nukes when there is regime change and there is no central government looking after them.
Putin fears the risks and challenges associated with reintegrating veterans into Russian society and economy and thus remains unlikely to demobilize fully or rapidly — even in the event of a negotiated settlement to its war in Ukraine
It is hard to see any acceptable alternative to the continuation and enhancement of support for Ukraine to resist and if possible push back the Russian occupation. I seems such a horrible waste of life but there just seems to be no other way to do it. It is vital that the West gives sufficient support to Ukraine to allow them to prevent any further Russian advances.
Yes, even the Dim-Wit plan is unacceptable to Putin. Ukraine has to be almost completely disarmed, and reduced to a satellite. It is completely pointless, displacement activity, coming up with peace plans.
I think this is why my Eastern Ukraine idea has merits. Russia will simply not be bordered by a well-armed NATO-protected Ukraine. One can see that as a constant thread in their entire loopy strategy.
So offer to create a buffer state, that is not Ukraine, and not Russia. At the very least, that will smoke out whether Russia does just want a Russia-aligned state on its border, or whether it really just wants an ever bigger Russia.
That might work with a different type of Russian leader, but I don't think Putin can walk away from this.
If Putin could walk away with the acceptance of Crimea as Russian (I don't think they'll ever give that up), and a Russian-aligned state stretching along the Russian border, he would have secured 'peace with honour'. He would be extremely unpopular with Dugin etc., but he would look serious about Russian security, and would get (I would hope) some small credit for ending the slaughter of Russian men, as well as a chance to repair the Russian economy.
Ukraine would walk away with a reduced but united country, no border with Russia or directly controlled Russian territory, and the freedom to join the EU and NATO, and re-arm with Poland as its model. That would secure Ukraine and the EU's border.
The citizens of Eastern Ukraine would have a Yanukovich style puppet Government, with certain guarantees as to their democratic rights (I concede these would be largely symbolical) and hopefully have Russia repair their devastated towns and cities as a model Russian satellite state in attempted rivalry of Ukraine proper.
Who do I think this solution work for?
Europe UK USA Ukraine Russia
Who wouldn't it work for?
China Saudi Arabia and other rival oil producers
That works for me.
It would work for someone like Bismarck. A Russian Bismarck would have concentrated overwhelming force on taking the land corridor between Donetsk and Crimea, and then offering peace.
Putin has persuaded himself that an independent Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia.
A Russian Bismarck would have made Ukrainian friendship with Russia incredibly awesome and profitable.
Bit like what I would do with North Korea, if I was Chinese leader -
- Back reunification - Accept whatever government the Koreans voted for - Offer a vast, hyper low interest (no interest) loan/gift to rebuild North Korea. - Recognition and backing for the existing Korean borders etc. - Only stipulation is that no foreign military presence *of any country* in Korea. United Korea can arm itself how it likes, enter into alliance as it likes. Whatevers. Just no non-Koreans with weapons there.
This would get the Americans out of South Korea - big gain for China. And it would do so by making friends with the people of a united Korea. Who would act as strategic buffer.
Interesting, from this article one can deduce some important economic and political anaylsis:
Someone at the Telegraph has crunched the numbers and realised they are missing out on subscriptions from remainers......
Nah, Warner's been at this for a decade.
Hilarious the excitement of remainers over a Jeremy Warner hit piece.
"I’ll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with a far-fetched Brexit proposition. It is then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of the Daily Telegraph – the Daily Telegraph ! – publishing op-eds to post around the web, pointing out to its own readers that it was all a huge mistake."
On topic, some politicians on the opposition benches complaining loudly about Rachel Reeves may have "lied" about the £350 million per week sent to Brussels? So people made life changing decisions at the ballot box on that basis?
I was expecting Tories +1 or 2 at the expense of Reform. 29 is on the low side for Reform despite the +1.
Reform may have peaked, and have struggled a bit since getting to about 33%. If they have it coincides with the mistake of saying they would remove ILR if they felt like it (eg from my eye consultant and the German who plays the Last Post on Remembrance day locally), which touches on the lives of millions of decent residents and is noticed by millions more of their friends and neighbours, and the (slightly unfair but also slightly sinister) Guardian 'gas them all' allegations about Farage's time at the Wodehouse and Chandler alma mater.
3 former Tory MPs, Jonathan Gullis, former MP for Stoke North, Lia Nici who was MP for Bolton West and Chris Green who represented Great Grimsby have defected to ReformUK. No connection at all to the fact they now think Reform are most likely to be able to beat Labour in the seats they lost in 2024 but won under Boris in 2019 I am sure https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15341443/Defection-Reform-Tories-MP-minister-Gullis-trust-voters.html
Of those, Stoke North and Great Grimsby are classic red wall, Bolton West more an older style swings seat that EC have around the 30, 20, 20 mark. Any Reform candidate there would be in a fight were there to be a Con or Lab revival.
I was in a few WhatsApp groups with Jonathan Gullis from 2019 onwards, if you ever wonder why the schools/education system are in such a mess it all makes perfect sense when you realise he’s an ex teacher.
Him defecting to Reform has increased the average IQ of both parties.
Are Reform that bad ?
Nici is also notable for her political judgment.
...In December 2021, amid the Westminster lockdown parties controversy, Nici maintained that Johnson's moral authority had not been lost, and expressed her displeasure with whistleblowers who had brought attention to the matter, declaring that they "should be ashamed". Following Johnson's subsequent admission that he had attended a Downing Street garden party during the United Kingdom's first national lockdown, Nici defended him, stating that "nobody is perfect. The prime minister is a good man who wants to do the right thing for the UK and Grimsby." The following day, she asserted her belief that both the party and the leaks surrounding it were part of a plot against the prime minister by civil servants who did not want the United Kingdom to leave the EU.
In February 2022, Nici defended Johnson after his false claim that Keir Starmer was responsible for the failure of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute Jimmy Savile, alleging that the purported link between the two was "the number one issue for local people on social media" in the week before Johnson raised it in his response to the Sue Gray investigation into lockdown parties within government. The following week, Nici was appointed as a parliamentary private secretary to the prime minister.
In the 2022 vote of confidence in the Conservative Party leadership of Boris Johnson, Nici voted in favour of the Prime Minister. She later continued to openly support Johnson in the subsequent weeks up to his eventual resignation of the Conservative Party on 7 July. The day after Johnson's resignation, she was appointed as a parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for Levelling Up. On 10 July she repeated on the BBC allegations that Labour MP Angela Rayner crossed and uncrossed her legs to distract male MPs, an allegation originally made by an unnamed Conservative politician to the Mail on Sunday newspaper in April 2022. At the time Boris Johnson described the story about Rayner as "the most appalling load of sexist, misogynist tripe". On 19 June 2023, Nici abstained in the Commons vote to approve the Privileges Committee's report, which had found that Boris Johnson misled the House...
Another post budget poll showing the Tories going backwards, and people said Kemi did well.
She did.
The question is whether or not people care. I think it’s still an open question how much people are really willing to look at the Tories right now. If the prevailing mood is that there’s no chance anyone wants them back in a month of Sunday’s, Kemi could give speeches akin to the Gettysburg Address every week for the next 18 months and it wouldn’t make the blindest bit of difference.
That said, I did expect a modest uptick in their fortunes. Will wait for more polling with interest.
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
So why did she lie to her Cabinet colleagues and why did Starmer connive in that lie?
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
Good morning
Austerity is living within your means
Labour have no idea how to achieve that
Neither, in all fairness, did the Conservatives when in Government.
No one has come up with a coherent and politically practical approach to getting borrowing down substantially - all we can do in the short term is slow the train. Talk of cutting £100 billion from benefits, as espoused by one or two on here, isn't going to happen even with Kemi Badenoch in charge.
I'd love to hear an alternative approach which makes sense but, as with the "small boats" (remember them?), there isn't an easy answer.
You need to do it gradually. It took Osborne 9 years to eliminate the huge structural deficit that he inherited. He managed to keep the economy growing, somewhat slowly, throughout that period by carefully calibrating the reduction each year. After Covid and Ukraine things are nearly as bad as they were in 2010 and we are starting with more than double the debt we had then as a share of GDP. It will take time, patience and skill, some things we seem to lack. A budget that actually increased borrowing for the next 3 years was a seriously bad step in the wrong direction. More debt is the last thing we need.
He added £555bn to the national debt, and lied about 'paying down the debt'.
Well, as I said you need to reduce a deficit gradually. If you try to do it all at once the economy collapses. This is why the Reform platform is an absurd joke. That gradualism meant that the borrowing did not stop in 2010, it continued all the way to 2019. And, when you think about it, if you are right about your £555bn, that is an average of £61bn a year. Reeves would give her eye teeth for that as would Sunak have.
Just because it's worse now, doesn't mean it was excusable then. If anything, it was less excusable, as despite the financial crash, we were still in far better shape back then than we are now.
I think Kemi has it right - cuts to the state, and spend the savings half on economy-boosting tax cuts, half on national debt payments.
What I don't know is how our national debt is structured (can you pay off the debt or are you just paying the interest before you get to it?), and whether our global creditors actually want to be paid off - presumably, like most lenders, they would prefer us to remain heavily indebted, but manageably so. Will they respond to a credible plan to pay them off by reducing our interest rate? I don't know, but something does tell me no.
If there was a credible plan to pay them off, then it would reduce the risk premium we are currently paying, so yes our interest rates would fall.
And since interest is one of our biggest costs, that would improve our budget balance further.
What actually happened
Investors responded to Osborne’s steady reductions in the deficit by accepting lower and lower rates on the debt.
The graph clearly shows where Gordon Brown's profligate overspending in the run-up to the GFC took borrowing up to unsustainable levels of, erm, less than it had been under the Tories.
Are you familiar with the concept of an economic cycle?
The cyclical nature is to have the deficit go up during recessions, down and ultimately into surpluses during times of growth, then back up when the next recession hits. Rinse and repeat.
Going into the recession before the GFC we had a budget surplus under the Tories, as you should prior to a recession. The deficit then rose counter-cyclically, as it should. It was then falling year on year.
In 2002 we were growing and had a budget surplus - great! Then we went into deficit, why? What recession happened in 2002? There was none.
There was no reason to go back into deficit from our surplus. We should have been in surplus going into the GFC, as we were before the last recession. Brown's profligacy was to increase the deficit prior to the recession. Comparing pre-recession and post-recession figures is utterly disingenuous or ignorant.
Anecdote - Why is the Tory party so full of shits and wankers?
One of my students works in a Bath hotel. Played host to the local Tory party Christmas do. Poor behaviour all round - called a member of staff 'a retard'.
I was in a few WhatsApp groups with Jonathan Gullis from 2019 onwards, if you ever wonder why the schools/education system are in such a mess it all makes perfect sense when you realise he’s an ex teacher.
Him defecting to Reform has increased the average IQ of both parties.
Are Reform that bad ?
Nici is also notable for her political judgment.
...In December 2021, amid the Westminster lockdown parties controversy, Nici maintained that Johnson's moral authority had not been lost, and expressed her displeasure with whistleblowers who had brought attention to the matter, declaring that they "should be ashamed". Following Johnson's subsequent admission that he had attended a Downing Street garden party during the United Kingdom's first national lockdown, Nici defended him, stating that "nobody is perfect. The prime minister is a good man who wants to do the right thing for the UK and Grimsby." The following day, she asserted her belief that both the party and the leaks surrounding it were part of a plot against the prime minister by civil servants who did not want the United Kingdom to leave the EU.
In February 2022, Nici defended Johnson after his false claim that Keir Starmer was responsible for the failure of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute Jimmy Savile, alleging that the purported link between the two was "the number one issue for local people on social media" in the week before Johnson raised it in his response to the Sue Gray investigation into lockdown parties within government. The following week, Nici was appointed as a parliamentary private secretary to the prime minister.
In the 2022 vote of confidence in the Conservative Party leadership of Boris Johnson, Nici voted in favour of the Prime Minister. She later continued to openly support Johnson in the subsequent weeks up to his eventual resignation of the Conservative Party on 7 July. The day after Johnson's resignation, she was appointed as a parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for Levelling Up. On 10 July she repeated on the BBC allegations that Labour MP Angela Rayner crossed and uncrossed her legs to distract male MPs, an allegation originally made by an unnamed Conservative politician to the Mail on Sunday newspaper in April 2022. At the time Boris Johnson described the story about Rayner as "the most appalling load of sexist, misogynist tripe". On 19 June 2023, Nici abstained in the Commons vote to approve the Privileges Committee's report, which had found that Boris Johnson misled the House...
So why did she lie to her Cabinet colleagues and why did Starmer connive in that lie?
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
Good morning
Austerity is living within your means
Labour have no idea how to achieve that
Neither, in all fairness, did the Conservatives when in Government.
No one has come up with a coherent and politically practical approach to getting borrowing down substantially - all we can do in the short term is slow the train. Talk of cutting £100 billion from benefits, as espoused by one or two on here, isn't going to happen even with Kemi Badenoch in charge.
I'd love to hear an alternative approach which makes sense but, as with the "small boats" (remember them?), there isn't an easy answer.
You need to do it gradually. It took Osborne 9 years to eliminate the huge structural deficit that he inherited. He managed to keep the economy growing, somewhat slowly, throughout that period by carefully calibrating the reduction each year. After Covid and Ukraine things are nearly as bad as they were in 2010 and we are starting with more than double the debt we had then as a share of GDP. It will take time, patience and skill, some things we seem to lack. A budget that actually increased borrowing for the next 3 years was a seriously bad step in the wrong direction. More debt is the last thing we need.
He added £555bn to the national debt, and lied about 'paying down the debt'.
Well, as I said you need to reduce a deficit gradually. If you try to do it all at once the economy collapses. This is why the Reform platform is an absurd joke. That gradualism meant that the borrowing did not stop in 2010, it continued all the way to 2019. And, when you think about it, if you are right about your £555bn, that is an average of £61bn a year. Reeves would give her eye teeth for that as would Sunak have.
Just because it's worse now, doesn't mean it was excusable then. If anything, it was less excusable, as despite the financial crash, we were still in far better shape back then than we are now.
I think Kemi has it right - cuts to the state, and spend the savings half on economy-boosting tax cuts, half on national debt payments.
What I don't know is how our national debt is structured (can you pay off the debt or are you just paying the interest before you get to it?), and whether our global creditors actually want to be paid off - presumably, like most lenders, they would prefer us to remain heavily indebted, but manageably so. Will they respond to a credible plan to pay them off by reducing our interest rate? I don't know, but something does tell me no.
If there was a credible plan to pay them off, then it would reduce the risk premium we are currently paying, so yes our interest rates would fall.
And since interest is one of our biggest costs, that would improve our budget balance further.
What actually happened
Investors responded to Osborne’s steady reductions in the deficit by accepting lower and lower rates on the debt.
The graph clearly shows where Gordon Brown's profligate overspending in the run-up to the GFC took borrowing up to unsustainable levels of, erm, less than it had been under the Tories.
What Brown did was to try and normalise the tax receipts from a mad boom.
When this evaporated, we had a structural deficit of something like 8-10%
The City was not really a boom as such. The problem was the economy had become unbalanced and increasingly dependent on just one sector to sustain it.
No.
There was a boom - financially unsustainable economic activity.
There was, quite definitely, a bust.
Brown was warned that derivatives were a bubble. A friend of mine, in the Bank Of England research unit, published a paper describing the problem and the probable end result. He was not the first.
Brown responded to such by sending out Ed Balls to demand that people “stop talking the country down”.
Isn't there a wonderful graph somewhere showing all of Blair/Brown's tax and spend spending was funded by the taxes from city bonuses?
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
As I said, I am extremely sceptical.
The bit I heard sounded like a not very good version of the communication they needed to do every day from July last year and haven't. My guess it is too late for this to work well, but despite that they are placed to be the least worst option for government, among the actual possibles, in 2029.
Anecdote - Why is the Tory party so full of shits and wankers?
One of my students works in a Bath hotel. Played host to the local Tory party Christmas do. Poor behaviour all round - called a member of staff 'a retard'.
That's one student never voting Tory.
Not every self-made man is a terrible human being. And not every self-made man ends up on the political right. And not every self-made man who ends up on the political right is a terrible human being. And not every terrible human being is a self-made man ends up on the political right.
I was in a few WhatsApp groups with Jonathan Gullis from 2019 onwards, if you ever wonder why the schools/education system are in such a mess it all makes perfect sense when you realise he’s an ex teacher.
Him defecting to Reform has increased the average IQ of both parties.
From Wiki, on Chris Green:
"In July 2020, Green apologised after he retweeted a poem which referenced antisemitic tropes about a 'New World Order' and the Rothschild family."
So why did she lie to her Cabinet colleagues and why did Starmer connive in that lie?
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
Good morning
Austerity is living within your means
Labour have no idea how to achieve that
Neither, in all fairness, did the Conservatives when in Government.
No one has come up with a coherent and politically practical approach to getting borrowing down substantially - all we can do in the short term is slow the train. Talk of cutting £100 billion from benefits, as espoused by one or two on here, isn't going to happen even with Kemi Badenoch in charge.
I'd love to hear an alternative approach which makes sense but, as with the "small boats" (remember them?), there isn't an easy answer.
You need to do it gradually. It took Osborne 9 years to eliminate the huge structural deficit that he inherited. He managed to keep the economy growing, somewhat slowly, throughout that period by carefully calibrating the reduction each year. After Covid and Ukraine things are nearly as bad as they were in 2010 and we are starting with more than double the debt we had then as a share of GDP. It will take time, patience and skill, some things we seem to lack. A budget that actually increased borrowing for the next 3 years was a seriously bad step in the wrong direction. More debt is the last thing we need.
He added £555bn to the national debt, and lied about 'paying down the debt'.
Well, as I said you need to reduce a deficit gradually. If you try to do it all at once the economy collapses. This is why the Reform platform is an absurd joke. That gradualism meant that the borrowing did not stop in 2010, it continued all the way to 2019. And, when you think about it, if you are right about your £555bn, that is an average of £61bn a year. Reeves would give her eye teeth for that as would Sunak have.
I’m not sure what the reform platform is now. They seem to have rowed back from their ludicrous manifesto promises.
Tactically to get elected they should a Starmer and make very limited promises, just focus on Labour aren't working and we can fix migration.
If they want to actually govern well, rather than just get elected, they will be disappointed regardless, so may as well just focus on getting elected.
They tried the former with the local elections with mixed results so far. Some counties, like Kent, seem shambolic. They don’t seem to be too bad in Durham so far.
I haven't noticed any difference, although I am in one of the only non Reform wards and I'm not really paying any attention anyway.
They have a very interesting airports policy.
Genuine question: is the Durham micro-congestion charge still in place?
Can’t be all bad; I’ve had my £10 Christmas bonus this morning!
And me. £4 net. What to spend it on? So I've just booked ten days in Martinique over Xmas.
Can't even buy a pint for £4 nowadays. Not round here anyway; £4.50's about the cheapest.
At the same time its possible to buy beer very cheaply in supermarkets. Is it any wonder pubs are dying?
In 1972, when I started drinking in London pubs beer was 14p a pint. Not a figure you forget. With inflation that is now about £1.68. IIRC there was not then a huge gulf between pub and off sales prices. The gulf is now gigantic. This all explains a lot about what is happening in the pub and hospitality sector.
Here:
Greene King IPA, Tesco, 99p. Greene King IPA, Spoons, £1.89. Greene King IPA, Non-spoons, £4.40.
(Assume, for a moment, that Greene King IPA counts as beer.)
It’s that foul 3.4% piss, isn’t it ?
Yup. But so was much beer in 1972, I would guess.
Tesco have Bishop's Finger for £1.75, and MacEwans Special (7.3%!) for 1.99. Both better options.
They also do 4 for £7 for decent stuff too.
Sainsburys have some decent beers at low price points. old Empire is £1.75 IIRC, also bishops finger at the same price as Tesco.
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
As I said, I am extremely sceptical.
The bit I heard sounded like a not very good version of the communication they needed to do every day from July last year and haven't. My guess it is too late for this to work well, but despite that they are placed to be the least worst option for government, among the actual possibles, in 2029.
They need not just to communicate this, but actually do it.
Ob. ref - Obama asking why X was still a problem - "But I gave a speech on it a month ago?"
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
Interestingly we're discovering the drawbacks of Turkey being outside the EU, adding real cost and inconvenience to this contract we're working on put it mildly.
We're all interested in politics. We look for indications in polling that could be either a harbinger of doom or a siren for the sunlit uplands. If a pollster stopped an 'average Joe' in the street and asked them a series of questions about the Budget, what are they going to say? "My train fare isn't going up in January", "My pension is going up by 4.8%", "I'm getting more money because the minimum wage is going up", "I've got three children so I'm getting a bit more money".
They will not mention fiscal headroom and - if prompted - will say "I don't understand it". What they will understand is politicians getting their knickers in a twist over who said what and when and did they lie and who pulled whose pigtails first and why did the nasty boy over there give the quite girl a Chinese burn.
If Labour have escaped a Budget reaction then it's for the reasons I've just given - most people will think I'm getting a bit of this and a bit of that and tax hasn't gone up.
Two observations. First, most people understand the basics of taxation, ie. income tax is 20%, VAT is 20%, National Insurance is 8%. Those did not increase last week. What was true before the Budget remains true after the Budget. Most people will not appreciate immediately that as they're now getting more money because the minimum wage has increased, or because their pension has increased, they will pay more tax. Everybody noticed the moment that NI rates were changed in the first Labour Budget. They haven't touched them this time and most people will not realise that they will still end up paying more tax.
Second, there was a simple solution to the issue of the two child benefit cap. Increase it to three. Caps all too often appear arbitrary - numbers plucked from a hat. There's a reason we always referred to 2.4 children for so long. Some couples had three children so the average was naturally higher than 2. I am, myself, the third child and, as my parents admit, they had my brothers early, learnt to live within their means and then had me when purse strings could be loosened (and boy have I cost them since, but that's a different story). How many people genuinely have greater than three children? Kemi Badenoch herself has three children. Without wishing to personalise politics, if Badenoch had objected to a three child cap, I'm in no doubt that some individuals would have challenged her position.
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
As I said, I am extremely sceptical.
The bit I heard sounded like a not very good version of the communication they needed to do every day from July last year and haven't. My guess it is too late for this to work well, but despite that they are placed to be the least worst option for government, among the actual possibles, in 2029.
They need not just to communicate this, but actually do it.
Ob. ref - Obama asking why X was still a problem - "But I gave a speech on it a month ago?"
Similarly, Starmer declaring around the time of the one year anniversary of Labour in government: "we've done the hard yards". I recall my immediate response was "no you haven't, mate".
I was in a few WhatsApp groups with Jonathan Gullis from 2019 onwards, if you ever wonder why the schools/education system are in such a mess it all makes perfect sense when you realise he’s an ex teacher.
Him defecting to Reform has increased the average IQ of both parties.
From Wiki, on Chris Green:
"In July 2020, Green apologised after he retweeted a poem which referenced antisemitic tropes about a 'New World Order' and the Rothschild family."
Marjorie Taylor Greene: "I didn't know the Rothschilds are Jewish."
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
Artic Terns problem for Anglesey nuclear development?
Rare birds threaten to scupper Starmer’s mini nuclear revolution
This is a good thing, since the size and cost of the containment required for civilian reactors isn't massively different between a small reactor and a very large one.
One thing I quite like about the Rolls-Royce Small Modular Reactor design is that, while quite factory-friendly, it's not actually 'small'.
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
As I said, I am extremely sceptical.
The bit I heard sounded like a not very good version of the communication they needed to do every day from July last year and haven't. My guess it is too late for this to work well, but despite that they are placed to be the least worst option for government, among the actual possibles, in 2029.
They need not just to communicate this, but actually do it.
Ob. ref - Obama asking why X was still a problem - "But I gave a speech on it a month ago?"
Similarly, Starmer declaring around the time of the one year anniversary of Labour in government: "we've done the hard yards". I recall my immediate response was "no you haven't, mate".
It probably felt that way to him.
One thing that Thatcher and Blair shared was an ability to *change the culture of the system*
I've seen minutes from the 80s where civil servants are de-crying the "bizarre obsession" with Acid Rain (SO2 emissions) and "wasting time" on international negations on the same. And CFCs (Ozone).
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
Artic Terns problem for Anglesey nuclear development?
Rare birds threaten to scupper Starmer’s mini nuclear revolution
Reeves would be in trouble if she'd given a rosier account of the nation's finances than the OBR in advance of the budget. The fact that she gave a gloomier account than the OBR means she, and Starmer, will ride this out easily.
She should, however, learn from this by shutting the fuck up in advance of her next budget. The 'leaks' did her no favours, not did the early morning speech a few weeks ago.
That people made life-changing decisions off the back of the leaks and rumours isn’t a myth.
I’ve had three separate conversations with newcomers to my part of the world in the past month. The brain drain is real, it’s fuelled in large numbers by student loan repayments and graduate unemployment, and in small numbers by relocations to avoid potential “wealth” taxes. The latter only need to be small numbers though, each one taking 7-8-9 figures out of British jurisdiction.
9 figures? How many people do you know who pay over 100,000,000 in taxes?
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
Artic Terns problem for Anglesey nuclear development?
Rare birds threaten to scupper Starmer’s mini nuclear revolution
This is a good thing, since the size and cost of the containment required for civilian reactors isn't massively different between a small reactor and a very large one.
One thing I quite like about the Rolls-Royce Small Modular Reactor design is that, while quite factory-friendly, it's not actually 'small'.
I thought a SMR was the size of an intermodal container you can get on the back of a railcar. The "S"MR in your tweet is about the size of Wembley Stadium
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
I have been having lots of tests as my mobility and health disappoints but the good news is my tests were OK but as I long suspected it is all age related and pain management going forward
However, as I said to my doctor this am if I hadn't had my DVT 2 year's ago and with tests that followed they may not have found out my heart was knackered and my life saved by a pacemaker
My wife and I, and my family, are all so grateful to have been given more time and at least, as my wife starts our Christmas card list, I am still causing chaos on PB at times when several.on our list have passed on
Sometimes we get too bound up with politics when we should make the best of every day and accept our blessings when so many are suffering terribly through ill health, wars, famine, and yes Donald Trump
This is a good thing, since the size and cost of the containment required for civilian reactors isn't massively different between a small reactor and a very large one.
One thing I quite like about the Rolls-Royce Small Modular Reactor design is that, while quite factory-friendly, it's not actually 'small'.
They are, in fact, about the same power level as the US nuclear aircraft carrier reactors. Which is not surprising.
Short version - the original US plan for ships was to replace each *boiler room* with a reactor. So the USS enterprise got 8 nuclear reactors - each one sub sized. This proved to be insanely expensive to run.
So Westinghouse et al went to work, creating a version of the sub reactors that was maxed out for power output. This was relatively easy, since the KOG* had insisted on vast margins for submarine reactors. So all the other nuclear carriers have two of the higher power reactors. The actual reactor isn't (much) bigger. Higher power density.
Due to the heavy linkage between the US and UK submarine programs** and the occasional interest in nuclear surface ships in the UK, the design choices and ideas for this were shared with Rolls Royce.
So, strangely, when RR stretched the UK sub reactor designs....
*Kindly Old Gentleman AKA Admiral Rickover. The nickname was entirely sarcastic. As someone put it "With naval nuclear power we have finally found the perfect place for obsessive compulsive, perfectionist, power mad freaks."
**The first UK nuclear submarine was essentially an American sub from the reactor to the propellor (with some UK stuff added in). The cooperation later included the swap of reactor designs that could run without pumps at high power (US) and working pumpjet propulsors (UK). The combination of those 2 meant you can build a submarine that was as quiet at 20 knots as an old sub was a 3-5 knots.
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
This is a good thing, since the size and cost of the containment required for civilian reactors isn't massively different between a small reactor and a very large one.
One thing I quite like about the Rolls-Royce Small Modular Reactor design is that, while quite factory-friendly, it's not actually 'small'.
I thought a SMR was the size of an intermodal container you can get on the back of a railcar. The "S"MR in your tweet is about the size of Wembley Stadium
That's the reactor. Which generates the steam you use to power the turbines. It will fit in a railcar.
The rest of the space is taken up by the ancillary equipment.
You can get the turbines into a smaller space - see the the engine rooms of an American Supercarrier. But this costs money. Space isn't at a premium on land, and you can make more efficient and cheaper equipment with more space.
Did you know that the core for a submarine nuclear reactor would fit in a moderately large bucket? 50-100Kg of uranium is typical.
EDIT: The reactor is the expensive, special to build, bit. The steam turbines, generators and 'leecy stuff is bog standard stuff - order by the mile from a number of commercial outfits.
I have been having lots of tests as my mobility and health disappoints but the good news is my tests were OK but as I long suspected it is all age related and pain management going forward
However, as I said to my doctor this am if I hadn't had my DVT 2 year's ago and with tests that followed they may not have found out my heart was knackered and my life saved by a pacemaker
My wife and I, and my family, are all so grateful to have been given more time and at least, as my wife starts our Christmas card list, I am still causing chaos on PB at times when several.on our list have passed on
Sometimes we get too bound up with politics when we should make the best of every day and accept our blessings when so many are suffering terribly through ill health, wars, famine, and yes Donald Trump
Hear, hear. Although I haven't got, and apparently don't need, a pacemaker.
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
I see it's fantasy diplomacy day again on pb.com, where people invent diplomatic solutions to a war that Putin has no interest in ending.
Since Putin will not compromise, and since Putin is willing to destroy the Russian economy in pursuit of victory, the only outcome that does not see a victorious Russia poised to add Moldova, the Baltic States and elsewhere to its conquest of Ukraine, is a Ukrainian victory.
That's the only way out of the war. Putin is not going to offer us an easier end. Victory is the only way.
So we'd better get on with working out what we need to do to achieve it.
This is a good thing, since the size and cost of the containment required for civilian reactors isn't massively different between a small reactor and a very large one.
One thing I quite like about the Rolls-Royce Small Modular Reactor design is that, while quite factory-friendly, it's not actually 'small'.
I thought a SMR was the size of an intermodal container you can get on the back of a railcar. The "S"MR in your tweet is about the size of Wembley Stadium
That's the reactor. Which generates the steam you use to power the turbines. It will fit in a railcar.
The rest of the space is taken up by the ancillary equipment.
You can get the turbines into a smaller space - see the the engine rooms of an American Supercarrier. But this costs money. Space isn't at a premium on land, and you can make more efficient and cheaper equipment with more space.
Did you know that the core for a submarine nuclear reactor would fit in a moderately large bucket? 50-100Kg of uranium is typical.
EDIT: The reactor is the expensive, special to build, bit. The steam turbines, generators and 'leecy stuff is bog standard stuff - order by the mile from a number of commercial outfits.
The cost and delivery timelines for all the standard stuff is going in the wrong direction as a result of the power demand from AI data centres meaning lots of new build capacity chasing the supply chain.
This is a good thing, since the size and cost of the containment required for civilian reactors isn't massively different between a small reactor and a very large one.
One thing I quite like about the Rolls-Royce Small Modular Reactor design is that, while quite factory-friendly, it's not actually 'small'.
I thought a SMR was the size of an intermodal container you can get on the back of a railcar. The "S"MR in your tweet is about the size of Wembley Stadium
That's the reactor. Which generates the steam you use to power the turbines. It will fit in a railcar.
The rest of the space is taken up by the ancillary equipment.
You can get the turbines into a smaller space - see the the engine rooms of an American Supercarrier. But this costs money. Space isn't at a premium on land, and you can make more efficient and cheaper equipment with more space.
Did you know that the core for a submarine nuclear reactor would fit in a moderately large bucket? 50-100Kg of uranium is typical.
EDIT: The reactor is the expensive, special to build, bit. The steam turbines, generators and 'leecy stuff is bog standard stuff - order by the mile from a number of commercial outfits.
The cost and delivery timelines for all the standard stuff is going in the wrong direction as a result of the power demand from AI data centres meaning lots of new build capacity chasing the supply chain.
The SMRs will arrive perfectly in time for the AI bust, probably. Leaving large orders for power station equipment looking for a buyer...
So why did she lie to her Cabinet colleagues and why did Starmer connive in that lie?
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
Good morning
Austerity is living within your means
Labour have no idea how to achieve that
Neither, in all fairness, did the Conservatives when in Government.
No one has come up with a coherent and politically practical approach to getting borrowing down substantially - all we can do in the short term is slow the train. Talk of cutting £100 billion from benefits, as espoused by one or two on here, isn't going to happen even with Kemi Badenoch in charge.
I'd love to hear an alternative approach which makes sense but, as with the "small boats" (remember them?), there isn't an easy answer.
You need to do it gradually. It took Osborne 9 years to eliminate the huge structural deficit that he inherited. He managed to keep the economy growing, somewhat slowly, throughout that period by carefully calibrating the reduction each year. After Covid and Ukraine things are nearly as bad as they were in 2010 and we are starting with more than double the debt we had then as a share of GDP. It will take time, patience and skill, some things we seem to lack. A budget that actually increased borrowing for the next 3 years was a seriously bad step in the wrong direction. More debt is the last thing we need.
He added £555bn to the national debt, and lied about 'paying down the debt'.
Well, as I said you need to reduce a deficit gradually. If you try to do it all at once the economy collapses. This is why the Reform platform is an absurd joke. That gradualism meant that the borrowing did not stop in 2010, it continued all the way to 2019. And, when you think about it, if you are right about your £555bn, that is an average of £61bn a year. Reeves would give her eye teeth for that as would Sunak have.
I’m not sure what the reform platform is now. They seem to have rowed back from their ludicrous manifesto promises.
Tactically to get elected they should a Starmer and make very limited promises, just focus on Labour aren't working and we can fix migration.
If they want to actually govern well, rather than just get elected, they will be disappointed regardless, so may as well just focus on getting elected.
They tried the former with the local elections with mixed results so far. Some counties, like Kent, seem shambolic. They don’t seem to be too bad in Durham so far.
I haven't noticed any difference, although I am in one of the only non Reform wards and I'm not really paying any attention anyway.
They have a very interesting airports policy.
Genuine question: is the Durham micro-congestion charge still in place?
Yes. I'm not really sure who it affects, as you say it's a micro area that it's hard to see any reason to drive there unless you're one of the few non-student residents who I assume have a discount, are significantly disabled to the extent you can't use the bus (who I assume also have a discount) or are delivering stuff (but it only operates at certain times of day).
Anecdote - Why is the Tory party so full of shits and wankers?
One of my students works in a Bath hotel. Played host to the local Tory party Christmas do. Poor behaviour all round - called a member of staff 'a retard'.
That's one student never voting Tory.
I've never been one of those people who thinks that all Tories are child eating bastards or that everyone on the political left is a wonderful human being - I've seen too many counterexamples on both sides. But I do think that those on the political right are a bit more likely to have a mental hierarchy of human worth lurking somewhere in the back of their mind - the strivers versus the shirkers, Thatcher's 'our people' versus the 'enemy within' , the wealth creators versus those sleeping off a life on benefits, the white British versus the rest. Once you have that kind of hierarchy in place it's rather easier to start treating other people like you are better than them. If you remember that we are all equal in the eyes of God and to treat others how you would wish to be treated then you should be okay. And this kind of mindset is I think a little more consistent with voting left than right, overall.
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
As I said, I am extremely sceptical.
Hinckley point c is such an expensive disaster that it should kill uk nuclear power for a generation
I see it's fantasy diplomacy day again on pb.com, where people invent diplomatic solutions to a war that Putin has no interest in ending.
Since Putin will not compromise, and since Putin is willing to destroy the Russian economy in pursuit of victory, the only outcome that does not see a victorious Russia poised to add Moldova, the Baltic States and elsewhere to its conquest of Ukraine, is a Ukrainian victory.
That's the only way out of the war. Putin is not going to offer us an easier end. Victory is the only way.
So we'd better get on with working out what we need to do to achieve it.
So you don't like my suggestion to create a buffer zone, in Russia, along the border, using deadly radioactive contamination?
Creating an impassible, eldritch, deadzone - think a linear Slough.
Anecdote - Why is the Tory party so full of shits and wankers?
One of my students works in a Bath hotel. Played host to the local Tory party Christmas do. Poor behaviour all round - called a member of staff 'a retard'.
That's one student never voting Tory.
First Christmas Party I went to at my current employer the night ended with someone losing their job for gross misconduct (throwing a punch).
There is a substantial minority of people who can't drink alcohol without becoming fighty, or obnoxious in stone other way, but are fine people when sober.
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
Anecdote - Why is the Tory party so full of shits and wankers?
One of my students works in a Bath hotel. Played host to the local Tory party Christmas do. Poor behaviour all round - called a member of staff 'a retard'.
That's one student never voting Tory.
First Christmas Party I went to at my current employer the night ended with someone losing their job for gross misconduct (throwing a punch).
There is a substantial minority of people who can't drink alcohol without becoming fighty, or obnoxious in stone other way, but are fine people when sober.
These days, HR often argues that Christmas Parties of the open bar, and a few nibbles form is simply inviting a problem.
Can't say they are wrong.
The best Christmas Party I attended, years ago, they held it in the empty Tobacco Dock shopping mall. Kinda a funfair - various activities including dodgem cars. Which kept the drinking down to a sensible level.
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
Artic Terns problem for Anglesey nuclear development?
Rare birds threaten to scupper Starmer’s mini nuclear revolution
Arctic Terns are not of great concern in conservation terms. There are quite a few of them. But their migration pattern is extraordinary and worthy of giving them considerable respect. As TS Eliot would say they 'go south in the winter' and do about 30,000 miles a year. I say hi to a few occasionally on Mull, taking my hat off to them.
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
Artic Terns problem for Anglesey nuclear development?
Rare birds threaten to scupper Starmer’s mini nuclear revolution
A large colony, with Arctic, common and Sandwich terns present. Plus the possibility of roseate terns which are seriously rare. Terns, sadly, have been having a tough time in recent years,
They really need to find somewhere else to put this plant.
Anecdote - Why is the Tory party so full of shits and wankers?
One of my students works in a Bath hotel. Played host to the local Tory party Christmas do. Poor behaviour all round - called a member of staff 'a retard'.
That's one student never voting Tory.
I've never been one of those people who thinks that all Tories are child eating bastards or that everyone on the political left is a wonderful human being - I've seen too many counterexamples on both sides. But I do think that those on the political right are a bit more likely to have a mental hierarchy of human worth lurking somewhere in the back of their mind - the strivers versus the shirkers, Thatcher's 'our people' versus the 'enemy within' , the wealth creators versus those sleeping off a life on benefits, the white British versus the rest. Once you have that kind of hierarchy in place it's rather easier to start treating other people like you are better than them. If you remember that we are all equal in the eyes of God and to treat others how you would wish to be treated then you should be okay. And this kind of mindset is I think a little more consistent with voting left than right, overall.
I'd say I'm broadly centre right and of the Cameron flavour. I thought the coalition was the best government in decades. But the behaviour of too many Tories just pisses me off. They seem to look down on people. I've had this in the past when I did bar work during my degree.
I have a horror of the extreme left for different reasons.
Anecdote - Why is the Tory party so full of shits and wankers?
One of my students works in a Bath hotel. Played host to the local Tory party Christmas do. Poor behaviour all round - called a member of staff 'a retard'.
That's one student never voting Tory.
First Christmas Party I went to at my current employer the night ended with someone losing their job for gross misconduct (throwing a punch).
There is a substantial minority of people who can't drink alcohol without becoming fighty, or obnoxious in stone other way, but are fine people when sober.
These days, HR often argues that Christmas Parties of the open bar, and a few nibbles form is simply inviting a problem.
Can't say they are wrong.
The best Christmas Party I attended, years ago, they held it in the empty Tobacco Dock shopping mall. Kinda a funfair - various activities including dodgem cars. Which kept the drinking down to a sensible level.
Yes. The messaging about the bar tab was quite funny that year. First we were told that there were free drinks - but only up to a limit. Then they panicked at the thought of people trying to drink up to the limit, and told us that the limit was really high, and we wouldn't be able to reach it. Then they said that the really expensive drinks weren't included.
I had a great night. Introduced a colleague to the joys of nut liqueurs. Second Christmas Party I went to was a bit different, and the alcohol more limited. No employees lost to gross misconduct.
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
As I said, I am extremely sceptical.
Hinckley point c is such an expensive disaster that it should kill uk nuclear power for a generation
Conservative party should be ashamed
I doubt it was the Conservative Party per se, rather the civil service and process state.
I see it's fantasy diplomacy day again on pb.com, where people invent diplomatic solutions to a war that Putin has no interest in ending.
Since Putin will not compromise, and since Putin is willing to destroy the Russian economy in pursuit of victory, the only outcome that does not see a victorious Russia poised to add Moldova, the Baltic States and elsewhere to its conquest of Ukraine, is a Ukrainian victory.
That's the only way out of the war. Putin is not going to offer us an easier end. Victory is the only way.
So we'd better get on with working out what we need to do to achieve it.
So you don't like my suggestion to create a buffer zone, in Russia, along the border, using deadly radioactive contamination?
Creating an impassible, eldritch, deadzone - think a linear Slough.
You've forgotten their digging trenches round Chernobyl, at the beginning of this invasion, then ?
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
I see it's fantasy diplomacy day again on pb.com, where people invent diplomatic solutions to a war that Putin has no interest in ending.
Since Putin will not compromise, and since Putin is willing to destroy the Russian economy in pursuit of victory, the only outcome that does not see a victorious Russia poised to add Moldova, the Baltic States and elsewhere to its conquest of Ukraine, is a Ukrainian victory.
That's the only way out of the war. Putin is not going to offer us an easier end. Victory is the only way.
So we'd better get on with working out what we need to do to achieve it.
So you don't like my suggestion to create a buffer zone, in Russia, along the border, using deadly radioactive contamination?
Creating an impassible, eldritch, deadzone - think a linear Slough.
In February 2022 the Russians sent their army into and through the Chernobyl exclusion zone, and were so well-prepared that the soldiers started to dig trenches, disturbing radioactive fallout.
You can't create a buffer zone with sufficient radioactive contamination that would deter the Russians.
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
Artic Terns problem for Anglesey nuclear development?
Rare birds threaten to scupper Starmer’s mini nuclear revolution
Arctic Terns are not of great concern in conservation terms. There are quite a few of them. But their migration pattern is extraordinary and worthy of giving them considerable respect. As TS Eliot would say they 'go south in the winter' and do about 30,000 miles a year. I say hi to a few occasionally on Mull, taking my hat off to them.
I see it's fantasy diplomacy day again on pb.com, where people invent diplomatic solutions to a war that Putin has no interest in ending.
Since Putin will not compromise, and since Putin is willing to destroy the Russian economy in pursuit of victory, the only outcome that does not see a victorious Russia poised to add Moldova, the Baltic States and elsewhere to its conquest of Ukraine, is a Ukrainian victory.
That's the only way out of the war. Putin is not going to offer us an easier end. Victory is the only way.
So we'd better get on with working out what we need to do to achieve it.
So you don't like my suggestion to create a buffer zone, in Russia, along the border, using deadly radioactive contamination?
Creating an impassible, eldritch, deadzone - think a linear Slough.
In February 2022 the Russians sent their army into and through the Chernobyl exclusion zone, and were so well-prepared that the soldiers started to dig trenches, disturbing radioactive fallout.
You can't create a buffer zone with sufficient radioactive contamination that would deter the Russians.
I’m talking about the level of radiation that would kill the crew inside a buttoned up tank in about 5 minutes.
I see it's fantasy diplomacy day again on pb.com, where people invent diplomatic solutions to a war that Putin has no interest in ending.
Since Putin will not compromise, and since Putin is willing to destroy the Russian economy in pursuit of victory, the only outcome that does not see a victorious Russia poised to add Moldova, the Baltic States and elsewhere to its conquest of Ukraine, is a Ukrainian victory.
That's the only way out of the war. Putin is not going to offer us an easier end. Victory is the only way.
So we'd better get on with working out what we need to do to achieve it.
So you don't like my suggestion to create a buffer zone, in Russia, along the border, using deadly radioactive contamination?
Creating an impassible, eldritch, deadzone - think a linear Slough.
In February 2022 the Russians sent their army into and through the Chernobyl exclusion zone, and were so well-prepared that the soldiers started to dig trenches, disturbing radioactive fallout.
You can't create a buffer zone with sufficient radioactive contamination that would deter the Russians.
I’m talking about the level of radiation that would kill the crew inside a buttoned up tank in about 5 minutes.
Anecdote - Why is the Tory party so full of shits and wankers?
One of my students works in a Bath hotel. Played host to the local Tory party Christmas do. Poor behaviour all round - called a member of staff 'a retard'.
That's one student never voting Tory.
That's also hate speech. They'd be bloody lucky not to get a complaint to the police under the Equality Act if the member of staff was in fact disabled in any way.
Edit: the hotel management would also be at risk if it didn't handle the case properly.
As you say: really bad behaviour from the customers.
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
Artic Terns problem for Anglesey nuclear development?
Rare birds threaten to scupper Starmer’s mini nuclear revolution
A large colony, with Arctic, common and Sandwich terns present. Plus the possibility of roseate terns which are seriously rare. Terns, sadly, have been having a tough time in recent years,
They really need to find somewhere else to put this plant.
One would be more sympathetic if they were not the source of an outbreak of punning on PB.
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
Artic Terns problem for Anglesey nuclear development?
Rare birds threaten to scupper Starmer’s mini nuclear revolution
Arctic Terns are not of great concern in conservation terms. There are quite a few of them. But their migration pattern is extraordinary and worthy of giving them considerable respect. As TS Eliot would say they 'go south in the winter' and do about 30,000 miles a year. I say hi to a few occasionally on Mull, taking my hat off to them.
A short detour ought to be no big teal, then ?
What about my solution for the bats, repurposed?
Protecting bats is impotent. Sure. But rather than close everything down, increase bat nesting opportunities. Make more bats.
In the Goode Olde Days, dovecots were everywhere.
Come up with a picturesque batcot, build 100,000 of them.
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
As I said, I am extremely sceptical.
Hinckley point c is such an expensive disaster that it should kill uk nuclear power for a generation
Conservative party should be ashamed
I doubt it was the Conservative Party per se, rather the civil service and process state.
It was in 2007 that the then boss of EDF (UK) said that electricity from Hinkley Point C would be cooking turkeys for Christmas dinner in 2017. Eight years on from that date and the current expected completion date is somewhere between 2029 and 2031.
It's been such a long-running saga of delay that it started under the Labour government before the Coalition. I don't think anyone could credibly claim that the result would have been any different if there had been Labour Prime Ministers during the years 2010-2024. Both parties have presided over the same failings.
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
Artic Terns problem for Anglesey nuclear development?
Rare birds threaten to scupper Starmer’s mini nuclear revolution
Arctic Terns are not of great concern in conservation terms. There are quite a few of them. But their migration pattern is extraordinary and worthy of giving them considerable respect. As TS Eliot would say they 'go south in the winter' and do about 30,000 miles a year. I say hi to a few occasionally on Mull, taking my hat off to them.
A short detour ought to be no big teal, then ?
What about my solution for the bats, repurposed?
Protecting bats is impotent. Sure. But rather than close everything down, increase bat nesting opportunities. Make more bats.
In the Goode Olde Days, dovecots were everywhere.
Come up with a picturesque batcot, build 100,000 of them.
Do the same for artic terns.
Er, terns don't live in cots but on nice stony beaches. (Been to the colony on the little island on the Churchill Barriers in Orkney.)
Anecdote - Why is the Tory party so full of shits and wankers?
One of my students works in a Bath hotel. Played host to the local Tory party Christmas do. Poor behaviour all round - called a member of staff 'a retard'.
That's one student never voting Tory.
I've never been one of those people who thinks that all Tories are child eating bastards or that everyone on the political left is a wonderful human being - I've seen too many counterexamples on both sides. But I do think that those on the political right are a bit more likely to have a mental hierarchy of human worth lurking somewhere in the back of their mind - the strivers versus the shirkers, Thatcher's 'our people' versus the 'enemy within' , the wealth creators versus those sleeping off a life on benefits, the white British versus the rest. Once you have that kind of hierarchy in place it's rather easier to start treating other people like you are better than them. If you remember that we are all equal in the eyes of God and to treat others how you would wish to be treated then you should be okay. And this kind of mindset is I think a little more consistent with voting left than right, overall.
Apart from your disclaimer midway through your first sentence I agree with all of that
I see it's fantasy diplomacy day again on pb.com, where people invent diplomatic solutions to a war that Putin has no interest in ending.
Since Putin will not compromise, and since Putin is willing to destroy the Russian economy in pursuit of victory, the only outcome that does not see a victorious Russia poised to add Moldova, the Baltic States and elsewhere to its conquest of Ukraine, is a Ukrainian victory.
That's the only way out of the war. Putin is not going to offer us an easier end. Victory is the only way.
So we'd better get on with working out what we need to do to achieve it.
So you don't like my suggestion to create a buffer zone, in Russia, along the border, using deadly radioactive contamination?
Creating an impassible, eldritch, deadzone - think a linear Slough.
In February 2022 the Russians sent their army into and through the Chernobyl exclusion zone, and were so well-prepared that the soldiers started to dig trenches, disturbing radioactive fallout.
You can't create a buffer zone with sufficient radioactive contamination that would deter the Russians.
I’m talking about the level of radiation that would kill the crew inside a buttoned up tank in about 5 minutes.
Where would this be in relation to the graveyard for the survivors of the plane crash on the Ukraine/Republic of China border?
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
Artic Terns problem for Anglesey nuclear development?
Rare birds threaten to scupper Starmer’s mini nuclear revolution
Arctic Terns are not of great concern in conservation terms. There are quite a few of them. But their migration pattern is extraordinary and worthy of giving them considerable respect. As TS Eliot would say they 'go south in the winter' and do about 30,000 miles a year. I say hi to a few occasionally on Mull, taking my hat off to them.
A short detour ought to be no big teal, then ?
What about my solution for the bats, repurposed?
Protecting bats is impotent. Sure. But rather than close everything down, increase bat nesting opportunities. Make more bats.
In the Goode Olde Days, dovecots were everywhere.
Come up with a picturesque batcot, build 100,000 of them.
Do the same for artic terns.
PS You also need more bat food. Insects. Excellent idea that.
Did anyone listen to the Starmer speech (beyond my capacity to endure, I admit) ?
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ? (I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
Artic Terns problem for Anglesey nuclear development?
Rare birds threaten to scupper Starmer’s mini nuclear revolution
Arctic Terns are not of great concern in conservation terms. There are quite a few of them. But their migration pattern is extraordinary and worthy of giving them considerable respect. As TS Eliot would say they 'go south in the winter' and do about 30,000 miles a year. I say hi to a few occasionally on Mull, taking my hat off to them.
Best not to take your hat off to arctic terns during nesting season. They can be quite aggressive with their dive bombing.
Comments
Westminster Voting Intention:
RFM: 29% (+1)
LAB: 20% (=)
CON: 18% (-2)
LDM: 13% (=)
GRN: 12% (+2)
Via @focaldataHQ, 26-28 Nov.
Changes w/ 18-21 Nov.
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1995466211061006657?t=UXdK0Pn14psLLQG6D42wqw&s=19
I’ve had three separate conversations with newcomers to my part of the world in the past month. The brain drain is real, it’s fuelled in large numbers by student loan repayments and graduate unemployment, and in small numbers by relocations to avoid potential “wealth” taxes. The latter only need to be small numbers though, each one taking 7-8-9 figures out of British jurisdiction.
Your regular reminder that it takes a couple of weeks for events to show through in the polling, usually.
Polling moves slowly, especially when it’s an increase in party support. It’s like river levels in a groundwater region. You need weeks of rainfall to recharge the aquifers first.
Putin has persuaded himself that an independent Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia.
The story -
In the race to create atomic bombs, it turns out that you can't make nukes (yes, indeed). You can make reactors and lots of radioactive mess. So they invent radiological weapons - "dust". Dust a city. Everyone dies.
The leader of the project mounts a coup to take over the entire world. Including the United States. Because nearly anyone can create dust and it threatens the human race.
The new world government has a monopoly on dust, aircraft and other things.
In the short it is casually mentioned that to deal with some minor wars, a death zone is created between the waring nations.
Him defecting to Reform has increased the average IQ of both parties.
I see from reports of it that he did mention nuclear regulation, but did he really go this far ?
(I am sceptical.)
The Prime Minister spoke about the Taskforce on Nuclear Energy today:
"Exactly a week ago, John Fingleton reported on our nuclear industry. He found that pointless gold plating, unnecessary red tape, well intentioned but fundamentally misguided environmental regulations, and, I quote – it's quite a stark quote, he said – "a mindset that favours process over outcome" has all made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power.
"Now, I agree with him. In fact, I would go further. Because the truth is we see that story repeated again and again right across our economy. For years Britain did not have a proper industrial strategy. For years it cut public investment. For years it did not have a planning framework or frankly a government that would quickly approve new railways, new tramlines, data centres, laboratories, power stations, wind farms, even whole towns.
"So, guided by a simple truth, that rooting out excessive costs in every corner of our economy is an essential step to cutting the cost of living, and creating more dynamic markets for business, we will also clear the path for British business.
"And therefore, in addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I'm asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy."
The point about process over outcome is key. Our report is about achieving better outcomes for safety and the environment, which can be done at much lower cost if we get the regulatory framework right.
I would like to thank my fellow Taskforce members and the hard-working team of civil servants who supported us in this review.
I am also grateful to all those who responded very positively to our recommendations. There is a huge appetite for change. Implementation will require tough decisions and hard-work, so it is good to know that there a huge public appetite for change.
For those who have not seen it, the report is available below.
https://gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-regulatory-taskforce...
https://x.com/JohnFingleton1/status/1995456872053166099
Now, were they actually to adopt every recommendation in the report, it would make a very large difference to costs and timescales. Applied more broadly, and applied effectively, it might even make a significant difference to UK competitiveness.
As I said, I am extremely sceptical.
Bit like what I would do with North Korea, if I was Chinese leader -
- Back reunification
- Accept whatever government the Koreans voted for
- Offer a vast, hyper low interest (no interest) loan/gift to rebuild North Korea.
- Recognition and backing for the existing Korean borders etc.
- Only stipulation is that no foreign military presence *of any country* in Korea. United Korea can arm itself how it likes, enter into alliance as it likes. Whatevers. Just no non-Koreans with weapons there.
This would get the Americans out of South Korea - big gain for China. And it would do so by making friends with the people of a united Korea. Who would act as strategic buffer.
However football is a game of several halves.
Nici is also notable for her political judgment.
...In December 2021, amid the Westminster lockdown parties controversy, Nici maintained that Johnson's moral authority had not been lost, and expressed her displeasure with whistleblowers who had brought attention to the matter, declaring that they "should be ashamed". Following Johnson's subsequent admission that he had attended a Downing Street garden party during the United Kingdom's first national lockdown, Nici defended him, stating that "nobody is perfect. The prime minister is a good man who wants to do the right thing for the UK and Grimsby." The following day, she asserted her belief that both the party and the leaks surrounding it were part of a plot against the prime minister by civil servants who did not want the United Kingdom to leave the EU.
In February 2022, Nici defended Johnson after his false claim that Keir Starmer was responsible for the failure of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute Jimmy Savile, alleging that the purported link between the two was "the number one issue for local people on social media" in the week before Johnson raised it in his response to the Sue Gray investigation into lockdown parties within government. The following week, Nici was appointed as a parliamentary private secretary to the prime minister.
In the 2022 vote of confidence in the Conservative Party leadership of Boris Johnson, Nici voted in favour of the Prime Minister. She later continued to openly support Johnson in the subsequent weeks up to his eventual resignation of the Conservative Party on 7 July. The day after Johnson's resignation, she was appointed as a parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for Levelling Up. On 10 July she repeated on the BBC allegations that Labour MP Angela Rayner crossed and uncrossed her legs to distract male MPs, an allegation originally made by an unnamed Conservative politician to the Mail on Sunday newspaper in April 2022. At the time Boris Johnson described the story about Rayner as "the most appalling load of sexist, misogynist tripe". On 19 June 2023, Nici abstained in the Commons vote to approve the Privileges Committee's report, which had found that Boris Johnson misled the House...
The question is whether or not people care. I think it’s still an open question how much people are really willing to look at the Tories right now. If the prevailing mood is that there’s no chance anyone wants them back in a month of Sunday’s, Kemi could give speeches akin to the Gettysburg Address every week for the next 18 months and it wouldn’t make the blindest bit of difference.
That said, I did expect a modest uptick in their fortunes. Will wait for more polling with interest.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/02/04/the-state-of-process-the-process-state/
The problem is that it's swimming in mud (Where's @JosiasJessop when you need him?), to try and change things.
The UK system, from top to bottom is in love with Process. Not outcomes.
And they will deploy the Deadly Argument at every step - that reducing Process is an attack on Human Rights! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!
The cyclical nature is to have the deficit go up during recessions, down and ultimately into surpluses during times of growth, then back up when the next recession hits. Rinse and repeat.
Going into the recession before the GFC we had a budget surplus under the Tories, as you should prior to a recession. The deficit then rose counter-cyclically, as it should. It was then falling year on year.
In 2002 we were growing and had a budget surplus - great! Then we went into deficit, why? What recession happened in 2002? There was none.
There was no reason to go back into deficit from our surplus. We should have been in surplus going into the GFC, as we were before the last recession. Brown's profligacy was to increase the deficit prior to the recession. Comparing pre-recession and post-recession figures is utterly disingenuous or ignorant.
One of my students works in a Bath hotel. Played host to the local Tory party Christmas do. Poor behaviour all round - called a member of staff 'a retard'.
That's one student never voting Tory.
Sorry, everyone.
And not every self-made man who ends up on the political right is a terrible human being.
And not every terrible human being is a self-made man ends up on the political right.
But...
There's a heck of an overlap.
"In July 2020, Green apologised after he retweeted a poem which referenced antisemitic tropes about a 'New World Order' and the Rothschild family."
Sainsburys have some decent beers at low price points. old Empire is £1.75 IIRC, also bishops finger at the same price as Tesco.
Ob. ref - Obama asking why X was still a problem - "But I gave a speech on it a month ago?"
We're all interested in politics. We look for indications in polling that could be either a harbinger of doom or a siren for the sunlit uplands. If a pollster stopped an 'average Joe' in the street and asked them a series of questions about the Budget, what are they going to say? "My train fare isn't going up in January", "My pension is going up by 4.8%", "I'm getting more money because the minimum wage is going up", "I've got three children so I'm getting a bit more money".
They will not mention fiscal headroom and - if prompted - will say "I don't understand it". What they will understand is politicians getting their knickers in a twist over who said what and when and did they lie and who pulled whose pigtails first and why did the nasty boy over there give the quite girl a Chinese burn.
If Labour have escaped a Budget reaction then it's for the reasons I've just given - most people will think I'm getting a bit of this and a bit of that and tax hasn't gone up.
Two observations. First, most people understand the basics of taxation, ie. income tax is 20%, VAT is 20%, National Insurance is 8%. Those did not increase last week. What was true before the Budget remains true after the Budget. Most people will not appreciate immediately that as they're now getting more money because the minimum wage has increased, or because their pension has increased, they will pay more tax. Everybody noticed the moment that NI rates were changed in the first Labour Budget. They haven't touched them this time and most people will not realise that they will still end up paying more tax.
Second, there was a simple solution to the issue of the two child benefit cap. Increase it to three. Caps all too often appear arbitrary - numbers plucked from a hat. There's a reason we always referred to 2.4 children for so long. Some couples had three children so the average was naturally higher than 2. I am, myself, the third child and, as my parents admit, they had my brothers early, learnt to live within their means and then had me when purse strings could be loosened (and boy have I cost them since, but that's a different story). How many people genuinely have greater than three children? Kemi Badenoch herself has three children. Without wishing to personalise politics, if Badenoch had objected to a three child cap, I'm in no doubt that some individuals would have challenged her position.
I recall my immediate response was "no you haven't, mate".
Rare birds threaten to scupper Starmer’s mini nuclear revolution
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/12/01/rare-birds-threaten-starmers-mini-nuclear-revolution/
One thing I quite like about the Rolls-Royce Small Modular Reactor design is that, while quite factory-friendly, it's not actually 'small'.
At 470 Megawatts power it's not far from the capacity of the UK's massive old AGR gas reactors, but in a more easily producible package.
https://x.com/Jordan_W_Taylor/status/1995458268055883909
One thing that Thatcher and Blair shared was an ability to *change the culture of the system*
I've seen minutes from the 80s where civil servants are de-crying the "bizarre obsession" with Acid Rain (SO2 emissions) and "wasting time" on international negations on the same. And CFCs (Ozone).
It's under two minutes, for those who suffer from Starmer-phonophobia:
https://x.com/s8mb/status/1995463242315858193
Huge from the PM.
Starmer accepts the Fingleton Review *and* pledges to extend it to other infrastructure: data centres, railways, tramways, towns, labs, and more.
Massive, and a big shift from the Treasury's equivocation. Implementation will be a big battle, but we can win.
(It was an excellent header, btw.)
However, as I said to my doctor this am if I hadn't had my DVT 2 year's ago and with tests that followed they may not have found out my heart was knackered and my life saved by a pacemaker
My wife and I, and my family, are all so grateful to have been given more time and at least, as my wife starts our Christmas card list, I am still causing chaos on PB at times when several.on our list have passed on
Sometimes we get too bound up with politics when we should make the best of every day and accept our blessings when so many are suffering terribly through ill health, wars, famine, and yes Donald Trump
Short version - the original US plan for ships was to replace each *boiler room* with a reactor. So the USS enterprise got 8 nuclear reactors - each one sub sized. This proved to be insanely expensive to run.
So Westinghouse et al went to work, creating a version of the sub reactors that was maxed out for power output. This was relatively easy, since the KOG* had insisted on vast margins for submarine reactors. So all the other nuclear carriers have two of the higher power reactors. The actual reactor isn't (much) bigger. Higher power density.
Due to the heavy linkage between the US and UK submarine programs** and the occasional interest in nuclear surface ships in the UK, the design choices and ideas for this were shared with Rolls Royce.
So, strangely, when RR stretched the UK sub reactor designs....
*Kindly Old Gentleman AKA Admiral Rickover. The nickname was entirely sarcastic. As someone put it "With naval nuclear power we have finally found the perfect place for obsessive compulsive, perfectionist, power mad freaks."
**The first UK nuclear submarine was essentially an American sub from the reactor to the propellor (with some UK stuff added in). The cooperation later included the swap of reactor designs that could run without pumps at high power (US) and working pumpjet propulsors (UK). The combination of those 2 meant you can build a submarine that was as quiet at 20 knots as an old sub was a 3-5 knots.
It should be welcomed; he should be praised for it: and watched like a hawk to make sure he delivers.
The rest of the space is taken up by the ancillary equipment.
You can get the turbines into a smaller space - see the the engine rooms of an American Supercarrier. But this costs money. Space isn't at a premium on land, and you can make more efficient and cheaper equipment with more space.
Did you know that the core for a submarine nuclear reactor would fit in a moderately large bucket? 50-100Kg of uranium is typical.
EDIT: The reactor is the expensive, special to build, bit. The steam turbines, generators and 'leecy stuff is bog standard stuff - order by the mile from a number of commercial outfits.
Although I haven't got, and apparently don't need, a pacemaker.
Since Putin will not compromise, and since Putin is willing to destroy the Russian economy in pursuit of victory, the only outcome that does not see a victorious Russia poised to add Moldova, the Baltic States and elsewhere to its conquest of Ukraine, is a Ukrainian victory.
That's the only way out of the war. Putin is not going to offer us an easier end. Victory is the only way.
So we'd better get on with working out what we need to do to achieve it.
If you remember that we are all equal in the eyes of God and to treat others how you would wish to be treated then you should be okay. And this kind of mindset is I think a little more consistent with voting left than right, overall.
Conservative party should be ashamed
BREAKING: 1st appeals court decision on controversial temporary US Attorney installations goes against Trump, 3-0. 3rd Circuit rejects bid to make Trump lawyer Alina Habba acting US attorney. Restrepo/ Smith/Fisher (Obama/GWB/GWB)
https://bsky.app/profile/joshgerstein.bsky.social/post/3m6wlntit2s2w
Creating an impassible, eldritch, deadzone - think a linear Slough.
There is a substantial minority of people who can't drink alcohol without becoming fighty, or obnoxious in stone other way, but are fine people when sober.
Can't say they are wrong.
The best Christmas Party I attended, years ago, they held it in the empty Tobacco Dock shopping mall. Kinda a funfair - various activities including dodgem cars. Which kept the drinking down to a sensible level.
They really need to find somewhere else to put this plant.
I have a horror of the extreme left for different reasons.
I had a great night. Introduced a colleague to the joys of nut liqueurs. Second Christmas Party I went to was a bit different, and the alcohol more limited. No employees lost to gross misconduct.
You can't create a buffer zone with sufficient radioactive contamination that would deter the Russians.
Edit: the hotel management would also be at risk if it didn't handle the case properly.
As you say: really bad behaviour from the customers.
Protecting bats is impotent. Sure. But rather than close everything down, increase bat nesting opportunities. Make more bats.
In the Goode Olde Days, dovecots were everywhere.
Come up with a picturesque batcot, build 100,000 of them.
Do the same for artic terns.
It's been such a long-running saga of delay that it started under the Labour government before the Coalition. I don't think anyone could credibly claim that the result would have been any different if there had been Labour Prime Ministers during the years 2010-2024. Both parties have presided over the same failings.
Apart from your disclaimer midway through your first sentence I agree with all of that