“A historic moment in the European Parliament: The so-called “firewall” against right-wing parties has fallen. Right-wing populists and conservatives joined forces and pushed through a major motion on the new Return Regulation.
Some Key points: ✅ Outsourcing asylum procedures via external return hubs ✅ DNA testing to verify the age of illegal migrants ✅ Lifetime entry bans for illegals
Now the work begins. As European patriots, we must spread this message to national and regional level. We must coordinate political parties, media, and activists.
The USA has the National Rifle Association. Europe needs a Continental Remigration Association. If we build it, we can save this continent. Massive white pill today.”
US President Donald Trump has again taken aim at the UK's military support in the Middle East, denigrating its aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, as "toys".
Speaking at the start of a White House Cabinet meeting on Thursday, Trump criticised the speed at which the UK sent help in the days following the joint Israeli-US attacks on Iran almost one month ago.
"We had the UK say that ‘we’ll send’ – this is three weeks ago – ‘we’ll send our aircraft carriers’, which aren’t the best aircraft carriers by the way," he said. "They're toys compared to what we have."
“But ‘we’ll send our aircraft carrier when the war is over’. I said ‘Oh that’s wonderful, thank you very much. Don’t bother. We don’t need it,'” he added.
US President Donald Trump has again taken aim at the UK's military support in the Middle East, denigrating its aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, as "toys".
Speaking at the start of a White House Cabinet meeting on Thursday, Trump criticised the speed at which the UK sent help in the days following the joint Israeli-US attacks on Iran almost one month ago.
"We had the UK say that ‘we’ll send’ – this is three weeks ago – ‘we’ll send our aircraft carriers’, which aren’t the best aircraft carriers by the way," he said. "They're toys compared to what we have."
“But ‘we’ll send our aircraft carrier when the war is over’. I said ‘Oh that’s wonderful, thank you very much. Don’t bother. We don’t need it,'” he added.
If the President has said several times that he doesn't need anyone's help, and ours in particular, I'm not even sure why there's any debate in government about doing absolutely nothing - even if he has made other comments about wanting or demanding assistance, his other comments show he will still belittle and bully us for doing so, so there's really no point at all.
“A historic moment in the European Parliament: The so-called “firewall” against right-wing parties has fallen. Right-wing populists and conservatives joined forces and pushed through a major motion on the new Return Regulation.
Some Key points: ✅ Outsourcing asylum procedures via external return hubs ✅ DNA testing to verify the age of illegal migrants ✅ Lifetime entry bans for illegals
Now the work begins. As European patriots, we must spread this message to national and regional level. We must coordinate political parties, media, and activists.
The USA has the National Rifle Association. Europe needs a Continental Remigration Association. If we build it, we can save this continent. Massive white pill today.”
“A historic moment in the European Parliament: The so-called “firewall” against right-wing parties has fallen. Right-wing populists and conservatives joined forces and pushed through a major motion on the new Return Regulation.
Some Key points: ✅ Outsourcing asylum procedures via external return hubs ✅ DNA testing to verify the age of illegal migrants ✅ Lifetime entry bans for illegals
Now the work begins. As European patriots, we must spread this message to national and regional level. We must coordinate political parties, media, and activists.
The USA has the National Rifle Association. Europe needs a Continental Remigration Association. If we build it, we can save this continent. Massive white pill today.”
I voted to Remain without much enthusiasm tbh but this makes me feel much better about the return. 😂
Indeed. If the EU turns Hard Right then I would be seriously tempted to Rejoin. Very seriously tempted
And it is quite possible if not probable
Demographics is Destiny
I remember a while back when the Far Right thought the unification of Europe was a good idea, and ironically the Daily Mail were all for a unified Europe. Good old Blighty stood then as the standard bearer for good and righteous self determined independent nation states.
I see Badenoch has once again visited the Magic Money Tree. "Help with Energy Bills" - well, yes, but what kind of help and from where? Is she going to compel energy companies to reduce prices? Is there going to be Government money to help with bills, if so, how much and from where is the shortfall to be met?
As for drilling in the North Sea, I yield willingly to the knowledge of @Richard_Tyndall and others on the subject. I presume even if we started tomorrow, any new North Sea oil wouldn't be piped ashore for some weeks or months or years? I presume we'd need refinery capacity for example.
To be fair, "Fuel Britannia" is quite catchy albeit meaningless.
It's utter crap.
It would take many months.
It may get more tax receipts but would be sold at global prices at a loss.
Fuel Britannia lorry with a conservative logo when the pump price is £2 is a real vote winner?
Cue "Clueless Kemi robbin us" stickers
She's clueless
Vast majority of under 30s and majority of under 50s very pro renewables
Like with her rush to war, her rush to oil is the polar opposite of visionary or progressive.
Of “the” markets, it’s actually the European Market the UK gas bills shaped by, not world market. Being up to eyebrows in mud and goo, I missed Richard T saying drilling for more Gas in the proposed new UK North Sea fields, DEFINITELY lowers UK Gas bills. No one can promise that.
Has anyone on PB explained how such a small UK contribution to the European network, from new Gas wells proposed for Jackdaw and Cambo for example, will shape Gas Price UK pays for it? Richard T knows this industry well, he knows it’s not possible.
UK has long been price takers, not price makers. At the proposed level of input being argued over, with these new licenses on hold, most the oil sold into the Euro market, UK bills are hardly going anywhere.
All Oil and gas resource from the UK North Sea is owned by private companies, not UK. Once a company is granted a licence to drill, the oil and gas belong to that company. And they sell it on international markets at prices good for them. What stops them? What is actually stopping about 80% of it going abroad and not to UK, which is about normal?
We’ve sold the cake. You can’t sell cake, and still own and control and eat same cake you sold off. I can’t hear anyone talking about quasi-nationalisation. Though Kemi was so in bed with policies of the unions at PMQs yesterday, she might be talking about Nationalisation by after Easter. Farage also loves a bit of Nationalisation too - it obviously fits the Britain First ideology.
As has been explained multiple times, the companies that extract oil and gas pay the U.K. government tax. Lots of it.
When the oil and gas prices zoom up, the U.K. government gets more tax.
This offsets the effect of rising oil prices - they can use the extra revenue to subsidise consumers or reduce taxes elsewhere.
Since we will be using oil and gas for a number of years, even under the most aggressive net zero plans, why not get some financial benefit here?
Okay let’s talk money. 🙂
Unlike Green Lobby, I am open minded how much more drilling licenses UK needs to issue, but let’s at least agree how much income it brings in to us, so we have some sort of scale exactly what the UK government can buy with it. I am happy to go first, so you can all laugh and shake your heads at my pathetic excuse of research.
This is how UK has been taxing. All these taxes are on profits from extraction, pre refining. Ring Fence Corporation Tax (30%): A fixed permanent tax on profits from oil and gas extraction in the UK. Supplementary Charge (10%): An additional fixed charge on these same profits. Energy Profits Levy (38%): is that "windfall tax" introduced in 2022 and increased to 38% on 1 November 2024, sounds good so far for helping UK coffers Malmsy? 🤑 But there’s a question how much this tax regime now deterring exploratory drilling and license applications. Don’t just take it from me posting it here research for yourselves, how this amount of tax along with depleting basin trickier to explore and extract from is deterring investment new license interest, especially regarding gas - major operators are on record explicitly stating these reasons for their scaling back and exiting going on.
Part two we come to the “sweeteners” cost of which we agree gets extracted from gross UK gets in tax, for a Net we get we can actually spend. It’s pointless talking gross. The UK government provides several significant "sweeteners"—primarily through tax relief—to encourage companies to invest in the North Sea. Companies can claim an 80% allowance on expenditure specifically used to decarbonise their production. For every £100 a company spends on "green" tech for their rigs, they reduce their tax bill by approximately £109. Companies combine different tax reliefs to drastically lower upfront cost of new projects. By stacking standard capital allowances specific reliefs, companies sometimes reclaim up to 91p for every £1 they invest. The post-tax cost of a big project like ongoing Rosebank can be as low as 9p on the pound for the private company. This important if you argue for quick fix from new drilling. What happens with new drilling, according to OBR, if the bigger projects like Rosebank and Jackdaw are approved and move into full construction, net tax revenue for UK government in the following few years could actually decrease or stay broadly flat - because of "first-year capital allowances" companies can deduct nearly 100% of their construction costs from their tax bills immediately. For the new Rosebank license alone that tax breaks can mean UK "foots the bill" for up to 84-91% of these new development costs. The cost of these "sweeteners" to UK is measured in billions of pounds—mostly tax the state chooses not to collect to encourage companies to keep drilling. What was double for the 91% relief rate is £19.6 billion less for UK between 2023 and 2026, according to the OBR.
Also while we are in detail on money, shall we add in who pays decommissioning costs from older fields? The Green Lobby likes to bring that up, but I’m sure renewables have decommissioning costs too for UK taxpayer to fund up to half the cost.
You know I have left a fair few Facebook groups over the last year because all they do is post AI slop. It is sad to see you are persisting in doing the same on PB.
There’s other nuances around to drill more or not drill than just government says yes. Here is an excellent legal example.
Rosebank. Maybe up to 500M barrels of more Oil waiting there to be harvested with new drilling. Drilling license for that not stopped by the Labour government license policy, but was blocked by a UK court as illegal license proposal.
It was a Scottish court, using precedent from UK Supreme Court, that in another ruling used UK Conservative Government laws, post the Brexit vote, when preparing UK for Brexit the Conservatives responsibly aligned EU standards into UK law.
Do you want that law changed to by pass such court blocking of the Rosebank license proposal? Equinor has recently resubmitted that request. If you have been reading my posts, Equinor is a construct majority owned by Norway government. Equinor holds an 80% stake in the Rosebank field, the vast majority of the project's net profits belong to the company. As the 67% owner, the Norwegian government receives a proportionate share of the dividends Equinor pays out from its global earnings.
As UK government sold off its black gold and smelless gas - it is watching Norway build an amazing Sovereign Wealth fund from the North Sea, using dividends from both their own basin - and “UK Basin.”
Quiz question. Why doesn’t UK set up an Oil Company 100% owned by UK government - Fuel Britannia or Kemi-cal Ltd - and give licenses to that one? Would it make money? Would UK get sued for theft under International Law?
I see Badenoch has once again visited the Magic Money Tree. "Help with Energy Bills" - well, yes, but what kind of help and from where? Is she going to compel energy companies to reduce prices? Is there going to be Government money to help with bills, if so, how much and from where is the shortfall to be met?
As for drilling in the North Sea, I yield willingly to the knowledge of @Richard_Tyndall and others on the subject. I presume even if we started tomorrow, any new North Sea oil wouldn't be piped ashore for some weeks or months or years? I presume we'd need refinery capacity for example.
To be fair, "Fuel Britannia" is quite catchy albeit meaningless.
It's utter crap.
It would take many months.
It may get more tax receipts but would be sold at global prices at a loss.
Fuel Britannia lorry with a conservative logo when the pump price is £2 is a real vote winner?
Cue "Clueless Kemi robbin us" stickers
She's clueless
Vast majority of under 30s and majority of under 50s very pro renewables
Like with her rush to war, her rush to oil is the polar opposite of visionary or progressive.
Of “the” markets, it’s actually the European Market the UK gas bills shaped by, not world market. Being up to eyebrows in mud and goo, I missed Richard T saying drilling for more Gas in the proposed new UK North Sea fields, DEFINITELY lowers UK Gas bills. No one can promise that.
Has anyone on PB explained how such a small UK contribution to the European network, from new Gas wells proposed for Jackdaw and Cambo for example, will shape Gas Price UK pays for it? Richard T knows this industry well, he knows it’s not possible.
UK has long been price takers, not price makers. At the proposed level of input being argued over, with these new licenses on hold, most the oil sold into the Euro market, UK bills are hardly going anywhere.
All Oil and gas resource from the UK North Sea is owned by private companies, not UK. Once a company is granted a licence to drill, the oil and gas belong to that company. And they sell it on international markets at prices good for them. What stops them? What is actually stopping about 80% of it going abroad and not to UK, which is about normal?
We’ve sold the cake. You can’t sell cake, and still own and control and eat same cake you sold off. I can’t hear anyone talking about quasi-nationalisation. Though Kemi was so in bed with policies of the unions at PMQs yesterday, she might be talking about Nationalisation by after Easter. Farage also loves a bit of Nationalisation too - it obviously fits the Britain First ideology.
As has been explained multiple times, the companies that extract oil and gas pay the U.K. government tax. Lots of it.
When the oil and gas prices zoom up, the U.K. government gets more tax.
This offsets the effect of rising oil prices - they can use the extra revenue to subsidise consumers or reduce taxes elsewhere.
Since we will be using oil and gas for a number of years, even under the most aggressive net zero plans, why not get some financial benefit here?
Okay let’s talk money. 🙂
Unlike Green Lobby, I am open minded how much more drilling licenses UK needs to issue, but let’s at least agree how much income it brings in to us, so we have some sort of scale exactly what the UK government can buy with it. I am happy to go first, so you can all laugh and shake your heads at my pathetic excuse of research.
This is how UK has been taxing. All these taxes are on profits from extraction, pre refining. Ring Fence Corporation Tax (30%): A fixed permanent tax on profits from oil and gas extraction in the UK. Supplementary Charge (10%): An additional fixed charge on these same profits. Energy Profits Levy (38%): is that "windfall tax" introduced in 2022 and increased to 38% on 1 November 2024, sounds good so far for helping UK coffers Malmsy? 🤑 But there’s a question how much this tax regime now deterring exploratory drilling and license applications. Don’t just take it from me posting it here research for yourselves, how this amount of tax along with depleting basin trickier to explore and extract from is deterring investment new license interest, especially regarding gas - major operators are on record explicitly stating these reasons for their scaling back and exiting going on.
Part two we come to the “sweeteners” cost of which we agree gets extracted from gross UK gets in tax, for a Net we get we can actually spend. It’s pointless talking gross. The UK government provides several significant "sweeteners"—primarily through tax relief—to encourage companies to invest in the North Sea. Companies can claim an 80% allowance on expenditure specifically used to decarbonise their production. For every £100 a company spends on "green" tech for their rigs, they reduce their tax bill by approximately £109. Companies combine different tax reliefs to drastically lower upfront cost of new projects. By stacking standard capital allowances specific reliefs, companies sometimes reclaim up to 91p for every £1 they invest. The post-tax cost of a big project like ongoing Rosebank can be as low as 9p on the pound for the private company. This important if you argue for quick fix from new drilling. What happens with new drilling, according to OBR, if the bigger projects like Rosebank and Jackdaw are approved and move into full construction, net tax revenue for UK government in the following few years could actually decrease or stay broadly flat - because of "first-year capital allowances" companies can deduct nearly 100% of their construction costs from their tax bills immediately. For the new Rosebank license alone that tax breaks can mean UK "foots the bill" for up to 84-91% of these new development costs. The cost of these "sweeteners" to UK is measured in billions of pounds—mostly tax the state chooses not to collect to encourage companies to keep drilling. What was double for the 91% relief rate is £19.6 billion less for UK between 2023 and 2026, according to the OBR.
Also while we are in detail on money, shall we add in who pays decommissioning costs from older fields? The Green Lobby likes to bring that up, but I’m sure renewables have decommissioning costs too for UK taxpayer to fund up to half the cost.
You know I have left a fair few Facebook groups over the last year because all they do is post AI slop. It is sad to see you are persisting in doing the same on PB.
Fortunately Vanilla designates posters who use AI (slop) a lot as spammers/bots.
The only books I read or listen to these days are biographies, or history books, or politics.
I haven't read any fiction since before the pandemic.
Any particular reason? I know people who have never really read fiction - which baffles me anyway - but shifting from doing so to not is different.
I just don't have the time, I was a prodigious reader of fiction, I love my sci-fi.
Plus it's a downside of WFH, I usually WFH 2 days a week, and I used to read during my train journeys.
For the last 3 decades I have aimed to read at least 100 books year. For the first 20 years I averaged between 80 and 90 but the last 8 years I have been averaging between 100 and 120 a year.
I didn't read much for some years, but for the last 6 years have done about 150 a year - cheating with some pretty short easy stuff in fairness.
On track for about 50 in 2026 as a whole though - trying to work through my unplayed Steam library instead!
I use my reading rate as an excuse to keep buying books. I have about 6000 books in my collection and have read about 4500 of them. I am 60 years old and at 100 books a year, if I live to be 80 then I can justify buying at least 500 more books.
I am sure once I reach that number I will find another excuse to keep buying.
Hmph, I've got 2000 at 40, so I am clearly running very far behind.
My 'unread' pile always never seems to get lower than 20 though...
I do have a distinct advantage in that I basically grew up in my Mum's bookshop from the age of 4.
Tom Skinner on QT now giving the voice of Essex Man with journalist Steve Richards' son, now a Labour MP and Tom Tugendhat and Layla Moran
Nothing at all wrong with cheeky chappie extreme right wing barrow boys. If it's not Farage himself on QT it's some Estuary English no mark surrogate twerp.
The only books I read or listen to these days are biographies, or history books, or politics.
I haven't read any fiction since before the pandemic.
Any particular reason? I know people who have never really read fiction - which baffles me anyway - but shifting from doing so to not is different.
I just don't have the time, I was a prodigious reader of fiction, I love my sci-fi.
Plus it's a downside of WFH, I usually WFH 2 days a week, and I used to read during my train journeys.
For the last 3 decades I have aimed to read at least 100 books year. For the first 20 years I averaged between 80 and 90 but the last 8 years I have been averaging between 100 and 120 a year.
I didn't read much for some years, but for the last 6 years have done about 150 a year - cheating with some pretty short easy stuff in fairness.
On track for about 50 in 2026 as a whole though - trying to work through my unplayed Steam library instead!
I use my reading rate as an excuse to keep buying books. I have about 6000 books in my collection and have read about 4500 of them. I am 60 years old and at 100 books a year, if I live to be 80 then I can justify buying at least 500 more books.
I am sure once I reach that number I will find another excuse to keep buying.
Hmph, I've got 2000 at 40, so I am clearly running very far behind.
My 'unread' pile always never seems to get lower than 20 though...
I do have a distinct advantage in that I basically grew up in my Mum's bookshop from the age of 4.
It’s one of the great and welcome wonders of the 21st century that people still love books. There was a fear at one point that things like Kindle etc would finish off physical books.
The only books I read or listen to these days are biographies, or history books, or politics.
I haven't read any fiction since before the pandemic.
Any particular reason? I know people who have never really read fiction - which baffles me anyway - but shifting from doing so to not is different.
I just don't have the time, I was a prodigious reader of fiction, I love my sci-fi.
Plus it's a downside of WFH, I usually WFH 2 days a week, and I used to read during my train journeys.
For the last 3 decades I have aimed to read at least 100 books year. For the first 20 years I averaged between 80 and 90 but the last 8 years I have been averaging between 100 and 120 a year.
I didn't read much for some years, but for the last 6 years have done about 150 a year - cheating with some pretty short easy stuff in fairness.
On track for about 50 in 2026 as a whole though - trying to work through my unplayed Steam library instead!
I use my reading rate as an excuse to keep buying books. I have about 6000 books in my collection and have read about 4500 of them. I am 60 years old and at 100 books a year, if I live to be 80 then I can justify buying at least 500 more books.
I am sure once I reach that number I will find another excuse to keep buying.
Hmph, I've got 2000 at 40, so I am clearly running very far behind.
My 'unread' pile always never seems to get lower than 20 though...
I do have a distinct advantage in that I basically grew up in my Mum's bookshop from the age of 4.
It’s one of the great and welcome wonders of the 21st century that people still love books. There was a fear at one point that things like Kindle etc would finish off physical books.
It’s one of the great and welcome wonders of the 21st century that people still love books. There was a fear at one point that things like Kindle etc would finish off physical books.
Book reading in general isn't doing well, but it is remarkable paper books were not swept away by e-books. Personally all my fiction reading is done on a Kindle, but I still buy paper non-fiction because they tend to work better in physical form.
Interestingly, talking with my neighbour's teenager and his friends they seem to be big enthusiasts for physical media of all types. One even commented he'd cancelled his Spotify subscription and put the money toward buying vinyl records because streaming 'devalues' the music experience.
I was fairly shocked to hear that. You couldn't pay me to go back to records and tapes, but then I grew up when those were the only option. I remember the inconvenience of them. Scratched or dirty records, chewed up tapes and an endless struggle to get decent sound quality.
The only books I read or listen to these days are biographies, or history books, or politics.
I haven't read any fiction since before the pandemic.
Any particular reason? I know people who have never really read fiction - which baffles me anyway - but shifting from doing so to not is different.
I just don't have the time, I was a prodigious reader of fiction, I love my sci-fi.
Plus it's a downside of WFH, I usually WFH 2 days a week, and I used to read during my train journeys.
For the last 3 decades I have aimed to read at least 100 books year. For the first 20 years I averaged between 80 and 90 but the last 8 years I have been averaging between 100 and 120 a year.
I didn't read much for some years, but for the last 6 years have done about 150 a year - cheating with some pretty short easy stuff in fairness.
On track for about 50 in 2026 as a whole though - trying to work through my unplayed Steam library instead!
I use my reading rate as an excuse to keep buying books. I have about 6000 books in my collection and have read about 4500 of them. I am 60 years old and at 100 books a year, if I live to be 80 then I can justify buying at least 500 more books.
I am sure once I reach that number I will find another excuse to keep buying.
Hmph, I've got 2000 at 40, so I am clearly running very far behind.
My 'unread' pile always never seems to get lower than 20 though...
I do have a distinct advantage in that I basically grew up in my Mum's bookshop from the age of 4.
It’s one of the great and welcome wonders of the 21st century that people still love books. There was a fear at one point that things like Kindle etc would finish off physical books.
I have something like 2000 books but I've never been particularly enraptured by the medium itself. They're a means of transmitting knowledge and entertainment and I've never been particularly bothered about whether I get the text I want through a printed page, an e-reader or a pair of headphones. Some books are beautiful in the same way that an antique vase is beautiful but I don't see why it's better to absorb the text it contains from said beautiful book than through an epub file. If some benign entity digitised every book ever published then I probably wouldn't buy another one unless I wanted it for decorative purposes.
The only books I read or listen to these days are biographies, or history books, or politics.
I haven't read any fiction since before the pandemic.
Any particular reason? I know people who have never really read fiction - which baffles me anyway - but shifting from doing so to not is different.
I just don't have the time, I was a prodigious reader of fiction, I love my sci-fi.
Plus it's a downside of WFH, I usually WFH 2 days a week, and I used to read during my train journeys.
For the last 3 decades I have aimed to read at least 100 books year. For the first 20 years I averaged between 80 and 90 but the last 8 years I have been averaging between 100 and 120 a year.
I didn't read much for some years, but for the last 6 years have done about 150 a year - cheating with some pretty short easy stuff in fairness.
On track for about 50 in 2026 as a whole though - trying to work through my unplayed Steam library instead!
I use my reading rate as an excuse to keep buying books. I have about 6000 books in my collection and have read about 4500 of them. I am 60 years old and at 100 books a year, if I live to be 80 then I can justify buying at least 500 more books.
I am sure once I reach that number I will find another excuse to keep buying.
Hmph, I've got 2000 at 40, so I am clearly running very far behind.
My 'unread' pile always never seems to get lower than 20 though...
I do have a distinct advantage in that I basically grew up in my Mum's bookshop from the age of 4.
It’s one of the great and welcome wonders of the 21st century that people still love books. There was a fear at one point that things like Kindle etc would finish off physical books.
I have something like 2000 books but I've never been particularly enraptured by the medium itself. They're a means of transmitting knowledge and entertainment and I've never been particularly bothered about whether I get the text I want through a printed page, an e-reader or a pair of headphones. Some books are beautiful in the same way that an antique vase is beautiful but I don't see why it's better to absorb the text it contains from said beautiful book than through an epub file. If some benign entity digitised every book ever published then I probably wouldn't buy another one unless I wanted it for decorative purposes.
I like to own and display things generally, so that includes books, but I have hundreds of digital ones either written or audio, rather than thinking physical pages are inherently better.
It’s one of the great and welcome wonders of the 21st century that people still love books. There was a fear at one point that things like Kindle etc would finish off physical books.
Book reading in general isn't doing well, but it is remarkable paper books were not swept away by e-books. Personally all my fiction reading is done on a Kindle, but I still buy paper non-fiction because they tend to work better in physical form.
Interestingly, talking with my neighbour's teenager and his friends they seem to be big enthusiasts for physical media of all types. One even commented he'd cancelled his Spotify subscription and put the money toward buying vinyl records because streaming 'devalues' the music experience.
I was fairly shocked to hear that. You couldn't pay me to go back to records and tapes, but then I grew up when those were the only option. I remember the inconvenience of them. Scratched or dirty records, chewed up tapes and an endless struggle to get decent sound quality.
I like people who want physical copies of things like vinyl, but if they do I prefer it be that hey just like collecting things rather than try to convince me it sounds better somehow (if it does for some people I sure cannot tell).
The only books I read or listen to these days are biographies, or history books, or politics.
I haven't read any fiction since before the pandemic.
Any particular reason? I know people who have never really read fiction - which baffles me anyway - but shifting from doing so to not is different.
I just don't have the time, I was a prodigious reader of fiction, I love my sci-fi.
Plus it's a downside of WFH, I usually WFH 2 days a week, and I used to read during my train journeys.
For the last 3 decades I have aimed to read at least 100 books year. For the first 20 years I averaged between 80 and 90 but the last 8 years I have been averaging between 100 and 120 a year.
I didn't read much for some years, but for the last 6 years have done about 150 a year - cheating with some pretty short easy stuff in fairness.
On track for about 50 in 2026 as a whole though - trying to work through my unplayed Steam library instead!
I use my reading rate as an excuse to keep buying books. I have about 6000 books in my collection and have read about 4500 of them. I am 60 years old and at 100 books a year, if I live to be 80 then I can justify buying at least 500 more books.
I am sure once I reach that number I will find another excuse to keep buying.
Hmph, I've got 2000 at 40, so I am clearly running very far behind.
My 'unread' pile always never seems to get lower than 20 though...
I do have a distinct advantage in that I basically grew up in my Mum's bookshop from the age of 4.
It’s one of the great and welcome wonders of the 21st century that people still love books. There was a fear at one point that things like Kindle etc would finish off physical books.
I have something like 2000 books but I've never been particularly enraptured by the medium itself. They're a means of transmitting knowledge and entertainment and I've never been particularly bothered about whether I get the text I want through a printed page, an e-reader or a pair of headphones. Some books are beautiful in the same way that an antique vase is beautiful but I don't see why it's better to absorb the text it contains from said beautiful book than through an epub file. If some benign entity digitised every book ever published then I probably wouldn't buy another one unless I wanted it for decorative purposes.
I like to own and display things generally, so that includes books, but I have hundreds of digital ones either written or audio, rather than thinking physical pages are inherently better.
Totally understand about the desire to display them. I just don't entirely understand why some people think they're being more authentic or something by reading a novel in paperback rather than on an e-reader. I do agree about owning things though which is why I will make sure that I have a non DRM version of any digital book I purchase.
I used to read a lot of books including fiction and really struggling at the moment. Decided to read my favourite novel by Kazuo Ishiguro and although I'm concentrating a lot better than others it's still taking me a lot longer than it used to.
Ellen Dew (Reform UK) – 769 Thomas William Smith (Labour Party) – 410 Sam Peter Hewson (Green Party) – 133 Joanne Louise Saunby (Local Conservatives) – 110 Alan Kelly (Liberal Democrats) – 47 Turnout was 17.36 per cent.
Axholme Central:
Caroline Ann Finch (Local Conservatives) – 925 Gerrad Farmer (Reform UK) – 668 Alex Ellis (Green Party) – 157 Matthew Thomas Rawcliffe (Labour Party) – 103 Michael David Shaw (Liberal Democrats) – 28 Turnout was 31.23 per cent.
The only books I read or listen to these days are biographies, or history books, or politics.
I haven't read any fiction since before the pandemic.
Any particular reason? I know people who have never really read fiction - which baffles me anyway - but shifting from doing so to not is different.
I just don't have the time, I was a prodigious reader of fiction, I love my sci-fi.
Plus it's a downside of WFH, I usually WFH 2 days a week, and I used to read during my train journeys.
For the last 3 decades I have aimed to read at least 100 books year. For the first 20 years I averaged between 80 and 90 but the last 8 years I have been averaging between 100 and 120 a year.
I didn't read much for some years, but for the last 6 years have done about 150 a year - cheating with some pretty short easy stuff in fairness.
On track for about 50 in 2026 as a whole though - trying to work through my unplayed Steam library instead!
I use my reading rate as an excuse to keep buying books. I have about 6000 books in my collection and have read about 4500 of them. I am 60 years old and at 100 books a year, if I live to be 80 then I can justify buying at least 500 more books.
I am sure once I reach that number I will find another excuse to keep buying.
Hmph, I've got 2000 at 40, so I am clearly running very far behind.
My 'unread' pile always never seems to get lower than 20 though...
I do have a distinct advantage in that I basically grew up in my Mum's bookshop from the age of 4.
It’s one of the great and welcome wonders of the 21st century that people still love books. There was a fear at one point that things like Kindle etc would finish off physical books.
I have something like 2000 books but I've never been particularly enraptured by the medium itself. They're a means of transmitting knowledge and entertainment and I've never been particularly bothered about whether I get the text I want through a printed page, an e-reader or a pair of headphones. Some books are beautiful in the same way that an antique vase is beautiful but I don't see why it's better to absorb the text it contains from said beautiful book than through an epub file. If some benign entity digitised every book ever published then I probably wouldn't buy another one unless I wanted it for decorative purposes.
I like to own and display things generally, so that includes books, but I have hundreds of digital ones either written or audio, rather than thinking physical pages are inherently better.
Totally understand about the desire to display them. I just don't entirely understand why some people think they're being more authentic or something by reading a novel in paperback rather than on an e-reader. I do agree about owning things though which is why I will make sure that I have a non DRM version of any digital book I purchase.
Plenty of people think the opposite of course, believing it's somehow better to read books on e-readers.
Whilst Reform will have wanted both Lincs seats, worth remembering North Lincs was the only part of Lincolnshire to vote Tory first in the mayoral election last year so it's not too surprising they held up well here.
Whilst Reform will have wanted both Lincs seats, worth remembering North Lincs was the only part of Lincolnshire to vote Tory first in the mayoral election last year so it's not too surprising they held up well here.
Isle of Axholme is very agri-rural. Epworth is a small market town on a hill above the Flatlands and the original home of the Wesleys.
Whilst Reform will have wanted both Lincs seats, worth remembering North Lincs was the only part of Lincolnshire to vote Tory first in the mayoral election last year so it's not too surprising they held up well here.
Isle of Axholme is very agri-rural. Epworth is the original home of the Wesleys and a small market town on a hill above the Flatlands.
Not Reform territory really.
No, fair comment although both Donny East/Isle of Axholme and Gainsborough which it's sandwiched between returned 20% plus Reform votes in 2024 so its right amongst prime Reform territory
Whilst Reform will have wanted both Lincs seats, worth remembering North Lincs was the only part of Lincolnshire to vote Tory first in the mayoral election last year so it's not too surprising they held up well here.
Isle of Axholme is very agri-rural. Epworth is the original home of the Wesleys and a small market town on a hill above the Flatlands.
Not Reform territory really.
No, fair comment although both Donny East/Isle of Axholme and Gainsborough which it's sandwiched between returned 20% plus Reform votes in 2024 so its right amongst prime Reform territory
Yes. I could see Axholme North going more Reform-ish as Crowle is a bit more down at heel than Epworth, but it is still essentially Big Farmer country.
Whilst Reform will have wanted both Lincs seats, worth remembering North Lincs was the only part of Lincolnshire to vote Tory first in the mayoral election last year so it's not too surprising they held up well here.
Isle of Axholme is very agri-rural. Epworth is the original home of the Wesleys and a small market town on a hill above the Flatlands.
Not Reform territory really.
No, fair comment although both Donny East/Isle of Axholme and Gainsborough which it's sandwiched between returned 20% plus Reform votes in 2024 so its right amongst prime Reform territory
Yes. I could see Axholme North going more Reform-ish as Crowle is a bit more down at heel than Epworth, but it is still essentially Big Farmer country.
The thing with inflation is when it is something most people buy week in week out you notice. Be it eggs, peppers, onions or really food in general. It gets really noticed.
If it’s stuff like airline tickets or cinema tickets it’s less noticeable.
This, as we have discussed, will be bad. Very bad.
I’m certainly Reform curious/leaning towards, but their support for this shows me they don’t give a fuck about the effect on the people in the poorer communities (a bit like PB but from a different angle).
It’s even worse for fuel because it’s up in massive neon numbers all over the place.
It’s all getting pinned on Trump at the moment (anecdotal, social media) but I can’t see it lasting too long. Short-term, fiscally devastating handouts are surely on the way.
Sadly, and this is something we agree on, you’re right and it will be a disaster.
Fantastic Conservative result, obviously an excellent candidate - well done.
But the joke will hopefully become the reality. It does not surprise me at all. In the 1990s on South Lakeland there had been lots of local "Independents". The Lib Dems took many of them out by being more "Independent". These seats will become more in play for Reform. The voters stay the same it is the politicians who change, never forget that.
"Only Conservative on the council". That's a good joke, but the point was of course that Daffid only thought he was the only ... in the village !
The Conservative candidate for Vale of White Horse is already a county councillor with name recognition and works hard so this isn’t a great surprise. The Tories pushed potholes relentlessly as well as a new booking system for the tip introduced by the (LD) County Council. Classic local politics in other words.
Most interesting IMO is that Reform still can’t get a toehold in Oxfordshire.
The thing with inflation is when it is something most people buy week in week out you notice. Be it eggs, peppers, onions or really food in general. It gets really noticed.
If it’s stuff like airline tickets or cinema tickets it’s less noticeable.
This, as we have discussed, will be bad. Very bad.
I’m certainly Reform curious/leaning towards, but their support for this shows me they don’t give a fuck about the effect on the people in the poorer communities (a bit like PB but from a different angle).
It’s even worse for fuel because it’s up in massive neon numbers all over the place.
It’s all getting pinned on Trump at the moment (anecdotal, social media) but I can’t see it lasting too long. Short-term, fiscally devastating handouts are surely on the way.
Sadly, and this is something we agree on, you’re right and it will be a disaster.
The cost of the war itself will not be insignificant.
Iraq / Afghanistan costs after 9/11 were around $5-$8 trillion for the USA, which compares to a national debt of (currently) $38 trillion.
The cost of Trump's war on Iran is running at about $1.5 billion per day just for munitions, without even addressing the other military, economic and consequential costs to the USA. That alone is going to be an easy 1-2% of GDP if it continues for long (1% = $300 billion), which is enough to matter.
The Conservative candidate for Vale of White Horse is already a county councillor with name recognition and works hard so this isn’t a great surprise. The Tories pushed potholes relentlessly as well as a new booking system for the tip introduced by the (LD) County Council. Classic local politics in other words.
Most interesting IMO is that Reform still can’t get a toehold in Oxfordshire.
As an outsider admittedly that doesn’t surprise me really. It wouldn’t strike me as Reform friendly Is there any part of Oxfordshire that may lean to Reform ?
Angela Rayner is preparing to launch a podcast called Beyond the Bubble as she seeks to broaden her appeal before a potential Labour leadership contest
The former deputy prime minister has interviewed Lord Gove, the former Tory cabinet minister, as the star guest on the pilot, which is focused on housing
Rayner and Gove both served as housing secretaries and the two recently gave evidence together to a parliamentary committee about leasehold reform. Both championed legislation to give leaseholders and renters more rights while they were in office
The two are understood to get on well despite their political differences. Gove, who is now editor of The Spectator, is said to have joked to Rayner after their appearance before MPs that she had been like Annie Lennox to his Dave Stewart from Eurythmics
In the first episode Rayner conducts other interviews with people across the country about housing. The show was produced by Global, which owns the radio station LBC, but it is not yet clear if it has signed off a full series
The thing with inflation is when it is something most people buy week in week out you notice. Be it eggs, peppers, onions or really food in general. It gets really noticed.
If it’s stuff like airline tickets or cinema tickets it’s less noticeable.
This, as we have discussed, will be bad. Very bad.
I’m certainly Reform curious/leaning towards, but their support for this shows me they don’t give a fuck about the effect on the people in the poorer communities (a bit like PB but from a different angle).
It’s even worse for fuel because it’s up in massive neon numbers all over the place.
It’s all getting pinned on Trump at the moment (anecdotal, social media) but I can’t see it lasting too long. Short-term, fiscally devastating handouts are surely on the way.
Sadly, and this is something we agree on, you’re right and it will be a disaster.
The cost of the war itself will not be insignificant.
Iraq / Afghanistan costs after 9/11 were around $5-$8 trillion for the USA, which compares to a national debt of (currently) $38 trillion.
The cost of Trump's war on Iran is running at about $1.5 billion per day just for munitions, without even addressing the other military, economic and consequential costs to the USA. That alone is going to be an easy 1-2% of GDP if it continues for long (1% = $300 billion), which is enough to matter.
It'll be bad for the public finances if those munitions are replaced, but that will most likely be over several years. In fact, the extra spending could moderately stimulate economic growth in the medium term as the US economy has been slowing so probably has some slack.
Most likely any direct financial costs will get lost in the noise of a $31 trillion economy, unless the war drags on for months or there is a serious ground invasion, which are both extremely unlikely because of the midterms.
Interesting thread from @RochdalePioneers. Not sure I agree with all of it but I do agree on the key points in his last paragraph.
1. The current systems and solutions offered by Tory and Labour have clearly failed. 2. The insurgent parties - primarily Reform and The Greens - have recognised this and realise radical change is needed. 3. The solutions they are offering are not going to make things better and will probably make things a lot worse.
So the question that I have been considering is whether actually there is no viable practical solution to the problems facing us. Anything radical enough to deal with thebproblems (assuming we can even agree on what the problems are) may be do radical and disruptive it leads to large sections of the electorate simply refusing to go along.
Are we and much of the rest of the democratic West becoming ungovernable?
We have no precedent or case study for our predicament unfortunately, except perhaps Japan.
Perhaps 30% of our problems are down to recent crises (and there have been many) but the rest are down to ageing demographics. A shrinking active population, and a rapidly increasing dependency ratio. Plus advances in healthcare keeping people expensively alive for longer. Hard to find a solution to that, other than an ever increasing pension age.
I get very irritated by this assumption, brought up all the time on podcasts. I think it's politicians abdicating responsbility.
Our GDP performance is also nothing like Japan’s. Theirs is abject.
Politicians rarely mention demographics. It’s the rest of us. But just look at the basic maths and weep. Healthcare spending has to rise ahead of GDP simply for service levels to stand still. That’s not politicians abdicating responsibility.
Maybe AI will save us.
Sorry to bang this drum again but demographics drive only a very small proportion of our healthcare spending increases. It's more than doubled in real terms since 2000 - no amount of ageing can explain that. It's a political choice.
It’s exactly as I described: ever more expensive medicines that keep people alive and healthy longer. We already ration innovative medicines. Good luck trying to take that further without succumbing to privatisation.
Drugs are only about 10-12% of the budget. The bulk of the cost is staff and facilities
The Conservative candidate for Vale of White Horse is already a county councillor with name recognition and works hard so this isn’t a great surprise. The Tories pushed potholes relentlessly as well as a new booking system for the tip introduced by the (LD) County Council. Classic local politics in other words.
Most interesting IMO is that Reform still can’t get a toehold in Oxfordshire.
As an outsider admittedly that doesn’t surprise me really. It wouldn’t strike me as Reform friendly Is there any part of Oxfordshire that may lean to Reform ?
They have one county councillor in Didcot - a guy called Hao Du who with a name like that really ought to be in the Yorkshire Party.
Banbury might be fruitful territory for them but their campaign at last year’s locals died when someone dug up a tweet of their candidate saying “Jimmy Saville was all right really”.
East Oxford is the place to watch really - it’s currently a battle between Labour and some Reform-lite independents, but Reform organising there would throw a spanner in the works.
The thing with inflation is when it is something most people buy week in week out you notice. Be it eggs, peppers, onions or really food in general. It gets really noticed.
If it’s stuff like airline tickets or cinema tickets it’s less noticeable.
This, as we have discussed, will be bad. Very bad.
I’m certainly Reform curious/leaning towards, but their support for this shows me they don’t give a fuck about the effect on the people in the poorer communities (a bit like PB but from a different angle).
It’s even worse for fuel because it’s up in massive neon numbers all over the place.
It’s all getting pinned on Trump at the moment (anecdotal, social media) but I can’t see it lasting too long. Short-term, fiscally devastating handouts are surely on the way.
Sadly, and this is something we agree on, you’re right and it will be a disaster.
The cost of the war itself will not be insignificant.
Iraq / Afghanistan costs after 9/11 were around $5-$8 trillion for the USA, which compares to a national debt of (currently) $38 trillion.
The cost of Trump's war on Iran is running at about $1.5 billion per day just for munitions, without even addressing the other military, economic and consequential costs to the USA. That alone is going to be an easy 1-2% of GDP if it continues for long (1% = $300 billion), which is enough to matter.
It'll be bad for the public finances if those munitions are replaced, but that will most likely be over several years. In fact, the extra spending could moderately stimulate economic growth in the medium term as the US economy has been slowing so probably has some slack.
Most likely any direct financial costs will get lost in the noise of a $31 trillion economy, unless the war drags on for months or there is a serious ground invasion, which are both extremely unlikely because of the midterms.
Good morning, everyone.
Said it before, but China may just wait until Trump blows through a fortune in munitions then attack Taiwan while he's still bogged down.
Interesting thread from @RochdalePioneers. Not sure I agree with all of it but I do agree on the key points in his last paragraph.
1. The current systems and solutions offered by Tory and Labour have clearly failed. 2. The insurgent parties - primarily Reform and The Greens - have recognised this and realise radical change is needed. 3. The solutions they are offering are not going to make things better and will probably make things a lot worse.
So the question that I have been considering is whether actually there is no viable practical solution to the problems facing us. Anything radical enough to deal with thebproblems (assuming we can even agree on what the problems are) may be do radical and disruptive it leads to large sections of the electorate simply refusing to go along.
Are we and much of the rest of the democratic West becoming ungovernable?
We have no precedent or case study for our predicament unfortunately, except perhaps Japan.
Perhaps 30% of our problems are down to recent crises (and there have been many) but the rest are down to ageing demographics. A shrinking active population, and a rapidly increasing dependency ratio. Plus advances in healthcare keeping people expensively alive for longer. Hard to find a solution to that, other than an ever increasing pension age.
I get very irritated by this assumption, brought up all the time on podcasts. I think it's politicians abdicating responsbility.
Our GDP performance is also nothing like Japan’s. Theirs is abject.
Politicians rarely mention demographics. It’s the rest of us. But just look at the basic maths and weep. Healthcare spending has to rise ahead of GDP simply for service levels to stand still. That’s not politicians abdicating responsibility.
Maybe AI will save us.
Sorry to bang this drum again but demographics drive only a very small proportion of our healthcare spending increases. It's more than doubled in real terms since 2000 - no amount of ageing can explain that. It's a political choice.
It’s exactly as I described: ever more expensive medicines that keep people alive and healthy longer. We already ration innovative medicines. Good luck trying to take that further without succumbing to privatisation.
Drugs are only about 10-12% of the budget. The bulk of the cost is staff and facilities
Which are required because we keep people alive for longer.
Elderly people don't need double the healthcare expenditure of younger people, they require orders of magnitude more.
More to the point on reading and politics, which political (auto), biographies are actually worth reading?
I've read 'For the Record', but don't really have any others.
"Point of Departure" by Robin Cook.
Hailsham’s two memoirs - The Door Wherein I Went and The Sparrow’s Flight are worth reading. It’s rare to have a politician who was openly and unashamedly a practicing Christian.
The Sparrow’s Flight is a conventional memoir; The Door Wherein I Went is more about the impact of his faith on politics
Another morning, yet another 7am Today headline starting with “President Trump has said”.
I make that at least two thirds of the top headlines in the weeks since the war started. “President Trump has said”. That’s the news these days. What that plonker has said.
Another morning, yet another 7am Today headline starting with “President Trump has said”.
I make that at least two thirds of the top headlines in the weeks since the war started. “President Trump has said”. That’s the news these days. What that plonker has said.
I suspect most people translate "Trump as said" as "probably untrue". Unfortunately, stuff Trump says is important, even when it's untrue.
Another morning, yet another 7am Today headline starting with “President Trump has said”.
I make that at least two thirds of the top headlines in the weeks since the war started. “President Trump has said”. That’s the news these days. What that plonker has said.
I suspect most people translate "Trump as said" as "probably untrue". Unfortunately, stuff Trump says is important, even when it's untrue.
Given Trump is someone who can say the exact opposite within 2 sentences in a paragraph, its rather difficult to know what is actually important and true and what is a negotiation tactic.
Another morning, yet another 7am Today headline starting with “President Trump has said”.
I make that at least two thirds of the top headlines in the weeks since the war started. “President Trump has said”. That’s the news these days. What that plonker has said.
I suspect most people translate "Trump as said" as "probably untrue". Unfortunately, stuff Trump says is important, even when it's untrue.
Given Trump is someone who can say the exact opposite within 2 sentences in a paragraph, its rather difficult to know what is actually important and true and what is a negotiation tactic.
And what is just whatever random crap floated into his ego and dementia riddled mind.
The only books I read or listen to these days are biographies, or history books, or politics.
I haven't read any fiction since before the pandemic.
Any particular reason? I know people who have never really read fiction - which baffles me anyway - but shifting from doing so to not is different.
I just don't have the time, I was a prodigious reader of fiction, I love my sci-fi.
Plus it's a downside of WFH, I usually WFH 2 days a week, and I used to read during my train journeys.
For the last 3 decades I have aimed to read at least 100 books year. For the first 20 years I averaged between 80 and 90 but the last 8 years I have been averaging between 100 and 120 a year.
I didn't read much for some years, but for the last 6 years have done about 150 a year - cheating with some pretty short easy stuff in fairness.
On track for about 50 in 2026 as a whole though - trying to work through my unplayed Steam library instead!
I use my reading rate as an excuse to keep buying books. I have about 6000 books in my collection and have read about 4500 of them. I am 60 years old and at 100 books a year, if I live to be 80 then I can justify buying at least 500 more books.
I am sure once I reach that number I will find another excuse to keep buying.
Hmph, I've got 2000 at 40, so I am clearly running very far behind.
My 'unread' pile always never seems to get lower than 20 though...
I do have a distinct advantage in that I basically grew up in my Mum's bookshop from the age of 4.
It’s one of the great and welcome wonders of the 21st century that people still love books. There was a fear at one point that things like Kindle etc would finish off physical books.
I have something like 2000 books but I've never been particularly enraptured by the medium itself. They're a means of transmitting knowledge and entertainment and I've never been particularly bothered about whether I get the text I want through a printed page, an e-reader or a pair of headphones. Some books are beautiful in the same way that an antique vase is beautiful but I don't see why it's better to absorb the text it contains from said beautiful book than through an epub file. If some benign entity digitised every book ever published then I probably wouldn't buy another one unless I wanted it for decorative purposes.
I like to own and display things generally, so that includes books, but I have hundreds of digital ones either written or audio, rather than thinking physical pages are inherently better.
Totally understand about the desire to display them. I just don't entirely understand why some people think they're being more authentic or something by reading a novel in paperback rather than on an e-reader. I do agree about owning things though which is why I will make sure that I have a non DRM version of any digital book I purchase.
I only read paper books, but for me that's all about a decades old habit and general warm feelings associated with print books, not ebooks. Plus I feel I spend enough time looking at a screen as it is. So I only read ebooks for one or two things not available on paper.
There is also an annoying thing where publishers are weird about selling ebooks outside a country: for instance Amazon Japan's Kindle store requires a local address. Buying paper books from abroad is much more straightforward ("just" pay for shipping...)
Another morning, yet another 7am Today headline starting with “President Trump has said”.
I make that at least two thirds of the top headlines in the weeks since the war started. “President Trump has said”. That’s the news these days. What that plonker has said.
I suspect most people translate "Trump as said" as "probably untrue". Unfortunately, stuff Trump says is important, even when it's untrue.
Given Trump is someone who can say the exact opposite within 2 sentences in a paragraph, its rather difficult to know what is actually important and true and what is a negotiation tactic.
And what is just whatever random crap floated into his ego and dementia riddled mind.
Which would be fine if all that random crap had the power of Abe Simpson and were directed at passing clouds, or even the letters page of the Daily Express.
But it isn't. It's a dementia riddled ego, with the power of a huge military and economy behind it, directed at the rest of the world.
Another morning, yet another 7am Today headline starting with “President Trump has said”.
I make that at least two thirds of the top headlines in the weeks since the war started. “President Trump has said”. That’s the news these days. What that plonker has said.
I suspect most people translate "Trump as said" as "probably untrue". Unfortunately, stuff Trump says is important, even when it's untrue.
Given Trump is someone who can say the exact opposite within 2 sentences in a paragraph, its rather difficult to know what is actually important and true and what is a negotiation tactic.
And what is just whatever random crap floated into his ego and dementia riddled mind.
Which would be fine if all that random crap had the power of Abe Simpson and were directed at passing clouds, or even the letters page of the Daily Express.
But it isn't. It's a dementia riddled ego, with the power of a huge military and economy behind it, directed at the rest of the world.
What makes Trump2 so much worse than Trump1 is it is huge military and economy behind it being led by sycophants who desire to serve the dementia riddled ego, rather than the 250 year old nation.
The Healey interview shows to me the current state of our public sector at its extremes. We have 17 frigates and destroyers. None of them, none, were ready for sea. A week of extraordinary work got Dragon fit for Cyprus. And the other 16? Healey had no answers but it shows, again, that the increase in defence spending promised by Starmer may not even be enough to get what we have right now on paper into a useable form.
Its becoming a cliche of mine but we pay more and more for less and less. Changing this is the biggest priority of any government of any stripe. The alternative is economic ruin.
The Healey interview shows to me the current state of our public sector at its extremes. We have 17 frigates and destroyers. None of them, none, were ready for sea. A week of extraordinary work got Dragon fit for Cyprus. And the other 16? Healey had no answers but it shows, again, that the increase in defence spending promised by Starmer may not even be enough to get what we have right now on paper into a useable form.
Its becoming a cliche of mine but we pay more and more for less and less. Changing this is the biggest priority of any government of any stripe. The alternative is economic ruin.
Agreed, but there seems no political will to do it or take any of the tough decisions needed.
It’s all ‘I never went into politics to….’ Which, in reality, means they never went into politics to take a tough decision.
To all the folk with hundreds of books you will never read again:
Sell them, donate them to a charity shop, leave them on the bus. Just let them be read again. It's what they are for.
I mentioned my book shelves yesterday but that isn't my books nowadays (bar some large DC Ultimate slipcases). What I didn't mention is my kindle that has 1452 books I've bought over the years that I may or may not read. Most only cost 99p though so I don't feel that guilty..
My entire life, Americans have been bringing up the constitution in commanding, warning tones - in both good and bad faith - and now it’s been proven to just be a completely meaningless concept. A guy came along and decided it didn’t apply to him, and all branches of government went ‘ok, fine’
The Healey interview shows to me the current state of our public sector at its extremes. We have 17 frigates and destroyers. None of them, none, were ready for sea. A week of extraordinary work got Dragon fit for Cyprus. And the other 16? Healey had no answers but it shows, again, that the increase in defence spending promised by Starmer may not even be enough to get what we have right now on paper into a useable form.
Its becoming a cliche of mine but we pay more and more for less and less. Changing this is the biggest priority of any government of any stripe. The alternative is economic ruin.
Rather scathing report on our submarine production from an Australian perspective. Looks like they are at the back of the queue despite all the hype over AUKUS.
To all the folk with hundreds of books you will never read again:
Sell them, donate them to a charity shop, leave them on the bus. Just let them be read again. It's what they are for.
But out of my hundreds of books how do I know which ones I won't one day take a fancy to and reread? There is quite a lot of fantasy and some science fiction that probably fits into that category but its not as easy as you seem to suggest.
I used to be indecisive but I am not nearly so sure about that these days.
To all the folk with hundreds of books you will never read again:
Sell them, donate them to a charity shop, leave them on the bus. Just let them be read again. It's what they are for.
I mentioned my book shelves yesterday but that isn't my books nowadays (bar some large DC Ultimate slipcases). What I didn't mention is my kindle that has 1452 books I've bought over the years that I may or may not read. Most only cost 99p though so I don't feel that guilty..
Every book reused or donated is a reduced royalty to the author. Not all authors are as rich as JK Rowling.
The Healey interview shows to me the current state of our public sector at its extremes. We have 17 frigates and destroyers. None of them, none, were ready for sea. A week of extraordinary work got Dragon fit for Cyprus. And the other 16? Healey had no answers but it shows, again, that the increase in defence spending promised by Starmer may not even be enough to get what we have right now on paper into a useable form.
Its becoming a cliche of mine but we pay more and more for less and less. Changing this is the biggest priority of any government of any stripe. The alternative is economic ruin.
Ironic that the most important area of public spending is the only one where Labour find it difficulty to rapidly spend money.
The thing with inflation is when it is something most people buy week in week out you notice. Be it eggs, peppers, onions or really food in general. It gets really noticed.
If it’s stuff like airline tickets or cinema tickets it’s less noticeable.
This, as we have discussed, will be bad. Very bad.
I’m certainly Reform curious/leaning towards, but their support for this shows me they don’t give a fuck about the effect on the people in the poorer communities (a bit like PB but from a different angle).
It’s even worse for fuel because it’s up in massive neon numbers all over the place.
It’s all getting pinned on Trump at the moment (anecdotal, social media) but I can’t see it lasting too long. Short-term, fiscally devastating handouts are surely on the way.
Sadly, and this is something we agree on, you’re right and it will be a disaster.
The cost of the war itself will not be insignificant.
Iraq / Afghanistan costs after 9/11 were around $5-$8 trillion for the USA, which compares to a national debt of (currently) $38 trillion.
The cost of Trump's war on Iran is running at about $1.5 billion per day just for munitions, without even addressing the other military, economic and consequential costs to the USA. That alone is going to be an easy 1-2% of GDP if it continues for long (1% = $300 billion), which is enough to matter.
It'll be bad for the public finances if those munitions are replaced, but that will most likely be over several years. In fact, the extra spending could moderately stimulate economic growth in the medium term as the US economy has been slowing so probably has some slack.
Most likely any direct financial costs will get lost in the noise of a $31 trillion economy, unless the war drags on for months or there is a serious ground invasion, which are both extremely unlikely because of the midterms.
I'm not sure how it will play,
The DOD have already highly publicly asked for an extra $200 billion, which would relate to the direct costs.
There will -a s you say - be a lot of other things, such as wear and tear reducing the life of equipment, that will pan out over time.
The Healey interview shows to me the current state of our public sector at its extremes. We have 17 frigates and destroyers. None of them, none, were ready for sea. A week of extraordinary work got Dragon fit for Cyprus. And the other 16? Healey had no answers but it shows, again, that the increase in defence spending promised by Starmer may not even be enough to get what we have right now on paper into a useable form.
Its becoming a cliche of mine but we pay more and more for less and less. Changing this is the biggest priority of any government of any stripe. The alternative is economic ruin.
Ironic that the most important area of public spending is the only one where Labour find it difficulty to rapidly spend money.
You cannot make good 14 years of wilful neglect when you inherit a broken economy and a 22bn black hole of promised and allocated spending where that money never existed.
To all the folk with hundreds of books you will never read again:
Sell them, donate them to a charity shop, leave them on the bus. Just let them be read again. It's what they are for.
Nonsense. I have more than 1,000 book and I often reread some of them. Others I got to for reference as I belong to two book groups; one on-line,the other actual, and I sometimes wish to refer to something in one of them. How am I supposed to know which books I shall never read again?
I am not depriving anyone of reading a book; there are still libraries around and I am only too pleased to lend a book to someone, provided I get it back.
Comments
Great goal and a great off the underside of the bar nearly goal from Dan James. Unfortunately a great headed equaliser from Bosnia.
Didn't want to go to Trump's crappy World Cup anyway.
And it is quite possible if not probable
Demographics is Destiny
Ex-Polish prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki tells @StevenEdginton “the foundation of our continent should be based on our European Christian values”.
‘I’m worried about Britain becoming minority white-British’
He warns against Islamic “invasions” of European cultural life.
Rosebank. Maybe up to 500M barrels of more Oil waiting there to be harvested with new drilling. Drilling license for that not stopped by the Labour government license policy, but was blocked by a UK court as illegal license proposal.
It was a Scottish court, using precedent from UK Supreme Court, that in another ruling used UK Conservative Government laws, post the Brexit vote, when preparing UK for Brexit the Conservatives responsibly aligned EU standards into UK law.
Do you want that law changed to by pass such court blocking of the Rosebank license proposal? Equinor has recently resubmitted that request. If you have been reading my posts, Equinor is a construct majority owned by Norway government. Equinor holds an 80% stake in the Rosebank field, the vast majority of the project's net profits belong to the company. As the 67% owner, the Norwegian government receives a proportionate share of the dividends Equinor pays out from its global earnings.
As UK government sold off its black gold and smelless gas - it is watching Norway build an amazing Sovereign Wealth fund from the North Sea, using dividends from both their own basin - and “UK Basin.”
Quiz question. Why doesn’t UK set up an Oil Company 100% owned by UK government - Fuel Britannia or Kemi-cal Ltd - and give licenses to that one?
Would it make money?
Would UK get sued for theft under International Law?
He was Prime Minister for the Right Wing populists "Law and Justice"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Justice
Mandy Rice-Davies applies AGAIN!
It’s really good, but has a quite peculiarly lingering lime aftertaste, but without the sweetness
It’s a decent beer, but it’s like an (unsweetened) alcopop at the same time
I want another one, but I don’t know if I love it..
Reading is in precipitous decline
Suggests the Tories aren't dead where folk are doing well for themselves.
Interestingly, talking with my neighbour's teenager and his friends they seem to be big enthusiasts for physical media of all types. One even commented he'd cancelled his Spotify subscription and put the money toward buying vinyl records because streaming 'devalues' the music experience.
I was fairly shocked to hear that. You couldn't pay me to go back to records and tapes, but then I grew up when those were the only option. I remember the inconvenience of them. Scratched or dirty records, chewed up tapes and an endless struggle to get decent sound quality.
Con 666 - 45.6% (+2.2)
LD 395 - 27.2% (-17.0)
RefUK 261 - 18.0% (new)
Green 115 - 7.9% (-4.5)
Lab 14 - 1.0% (new)
But so does a journey of a single step.
Farage would have to put his pint and fag down.
But he's already wearing driving gloves.
2 holds 1 gain for Con
1 gain for Reform
First cheerful Locals night for Con in a very long while
North Lincolnshire, Brumby:
Ellen Dew (Reform UK) – 769
Thomas William Smith (Labour Party) – 410
Sam Peter Hewson (Green Party) – 133
Joanne Louise Saunby (Local Conservatives) – 110
Alan Kelly (Liberal Democrats) – 47
Turnout was 17.36 per cent.
Axholme Central:
Caroline Ann Finch (Local Conservatives) – 925
Gerrad Farmer (Reform UK) – 668
Alex Ellis (Green Party) – 157
Matthew Thomas Rawcliffe (Labour Party) – 103
Michael David Shaw (Liberal Democrats) – 28
Turnout was 31.23 per cent.
Sevenoaks
Sevenoaks, Halstead & al
Con: 561 44.2%
Ref: 378 29.8%
LD: 266 20.9%
Grn 65 5.1%
Not Reform territory really.
Scunthorpe, on the other hand... Eeech.
Oh, and Labour - 1%. Lol.
But the joke will hopefully become the reality. It does not surprise me at all. In the 1990s on South Lakeland there had been lots of local "Independents". The Lib Dems took many of them out by being more "Independent". These seats will become more in play for Reform. The voters stay the same it is the politicians who change, never forget that.
"Only Conservative on the council". That's a good joke, but the point was of course that Daffid only thought he was the only ... in the village !
Most interesting IMO is that Reform still can’t get a toehold in Oxfordshire.
Iraq / Afghanistan costs after 9/11 were around $5-$8 trillion for the USA, which compares to a national debt of (currently) $38 trillion.
The cost of Trump's war on Iran is running at about $1.5 billion per day just for munitions, without even addressing the other military, economic and consequential costs to the USA. That alone is going to be an easy 1-2% of GDP if it continues for long (1% = $300 billion), which is enough to matter.
This guys really on top of his brief
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1CQAMnGz7c/?mibextid=wwXIfr
..and he was being touted on here as a possible replacement for Starmer.
Most likely any direct financial costs will get lost in the noise of a $31 trillion economy, unless the war drags on for months or there is a serious ground invasion, which are both extremely unlikely because of the midterms.
Banbury might be fruitful territory for them but their campaign at last year’s locals died when someone dug up a tweet of their candidate saying “Jimmy Saville was all right really”.
East Oxford is the place to watch really - it’s currently a battle between Labour and some Reform-lite independents, but Reform organising there would throw a spanner in the works.
Said it before, but China may just wait until Trump blows through a fortune in munitions then attack Taiwan while he's still bogged down.
Elderly people don't need double the healthcare expenditure of younger people, they require orders of magnitude more.
The Sparrow’s Flight is a conventional memoir; The Door Wherein I Went is more about the impact of his faith on politics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9fuSOPjSXM
I make that at least two thirds of the top headlines in the weeks since the war started. “President Trump has said”. That’s the news these days. What that plonker has said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz0el909yp3o
Abusing women?
Corruption?
Failure to investigate reported crimes?
Oh, its Roger. Its going to be Israel somehow, isn't it?
(The patriotic sweater is made of cotton in Portugal and costs $300).
‘ The REINDUSTRIALIZE sweater.
100% cotton, to look good while you’re working to reindustrialize America.
Made by Skill Issue, a luxury brand for technologists.
Buy: skillissuesf.com/products/reind…’
https://x.com/skillissuesf/status/2037148910028771408?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
There is also an annoying thing where publishers are weird about selling ebooks outside a country: for instance Amazon Japan's Kindle store requires a local address. Buying paper books from abroad is much more straightforward ("just" pay for shipping...)
But it isn't. It's a dementia riddled ego, with the power of a huge military and economy behind it, directed at the rest of the world.
Its becoming a cliche of mine but we pay more and more for less and less. Changing this is the biggest priority of any government of any stripe. The alternative is economic ruin.
Sell them, donate them to a charity shop, leave them on the bus. Just let them be read again. It's what they are for.
It’s all ‘I never went into politics to….’ Which, in reality, means they never went into politics to take a tough decision.
My entire life, Americans have been bringing up the constitution in commanding, warning tones - in both good and bad faith - and now it’s been proven to just be a completely meaningless concept. A guy came along and decided it didn’t apply to him, and all branches of government went ‘ok, fine’
https://bsky.app/profile/petefrasermusic.bsky.social/post/3mhyt2khrws2c
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/20/the-weakest-link-australias-submarine-hopes-depend-on-the-uk-but-britannia-no-longer-rules-the-waves?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
I used to be indecisive but I am not nearly so sure about that these days.
NEW THREAD
The DOD have already highly publicly asked for an extra $200 billion, which would relate to the direct costs.
There will -a s you say - be a lot of other things, such as wear and tear reducing the life of equipment, that will pan out over time.
This is on the Tory treason chargesheet
I am not depriving anyone of reading a book; there are still libraries around and I am only too pleased to lend a book to someone, provided I get it back.