Crypto has been a way for dodgy people to receive money from others for over a decade
Really, news to me. Cheers 👍
Crypto is a bit like timeshares. The basic concept isn't a problem. It's just that 99.99999% of the people involved are crooks/scammers.
I’d not touch it with a barge pole.
We’ve got friends who think they’ll make a fortune on XRP
I’ll stick to my portfolio.
At the beginning of the crypto mania, my boss at the time was looking to get in. So I explained to him the asymmetry in time to buy and sell for the big boys vs the customers (aka the marks). The zig zags in the prices from the pump-and-dump were what really shook him, though.
Love the term ‘marks’, from my love of pro wrestling.
Meme coins seem to be even worse than normal crypto.
And did I live through an episode of the twilight zone or did people really pay big bucks for JPEGs of a chimp in a variety of hats.
Yes, they did.
My only regret with all of this is not getting in at the top. It was too insane to believe in. But if I'd put in £100 when Bitcoin went through £1....
Likewise but as it went through every point it felt like this is insane that has to be it
"We asked participants where they thought Britain stood economically compared to our main competitors. It turns out voters are living in a dreamworld.
Nearly half of British voters think that we are as rich, or richer, than Switzerland. Over half think we are as rich or richer than Australia, Singapore, or Germany. And, incredibly, over half of us think Britain is as rich as, or richer, than the United States.
The truth of course is that we are poorer than all those countries – according to the IMF, we are 10 per cent poorer than Germany, 20 per cent poorer than Australia, about 40 per cent poorer than America or Singapore."
Is someone from the USA who has 2 weeks paid holiday not 5, who spends perhaps £10k per annum on healthcare that is free here, who gets little or no income when they are ill, and who on average will die 4 years earlier than other Western citizens really wealthier than a British citizen?
And that is leaving aside the distribution patterns of wealth.
I note that you havent consider the dystopian hell hole that is... Switzerland. Or Germany. Or Australia.
The problem remains what it has always been - inadequate levels of investment. Why we fail to invest as much as other countries is more of a mystery to me.
I think the main British issue is the people on our political Right have a weird, blind fetish about the USA .... even now as we watch it fall to pieces. So I comment on that.
No matter what happens, they will wreck the society. They will always live of past investment, and not support the future - so they can give a false impression to their supporters.
Just as they did for example with a highly successful policy such as Sure Start, or the initiative which cut out road deaths in half in a mere 9 years from 2000/1.
Even David Cameron - marketing himself as he did - did not give a damn, and just trampled it into the earth.
That's why in my view the Conservative Party - speaking as a former member - needs to die, and be replaced with something decent.
BiB - did road deaths double after that decision?
Here's the historical graph. They decided to stop trying, and progress stopped.
There's always a soft limit to how far casualty rates can be reduced without actually banning motor vehicles or significantly restricting their use, particularly in the UK where our rate is already very low.
Introducing 20mph limits all over the place is more or less performative; most accidents resulting in KSIs don't happen because someone is doing 30mph down a residential street, they happen on faster roads (particularly NSL roads) or because the driver is speeding. So reducing the limit buys almost no real decrease in casualties. But it lets the government say they're doing something.
Making a notable difference would require politically unpalatable decisions, like introducing age and power gated car licences, similar to the current motorcycle licence system. Make drivers do a mandatory competence check every few years. Ban vehicles with poor forward visibility, etc.
No government will do any of those, particularly give the experiment with age and power gates on bike licences is now acknowledged to have significantly reduce the number of people riding bikes, to the point where the DVSA are in the process of making it easier and cheaper for bikers to upgrade their licences.
I note that it is usually a moveable soft limit, based on many factors. In 1967 there were a lot of people opposed to breathalyzers; we turned that around. We are doing the same with mobile phone usage. Such is not difficult, but requires a little resolve, and application, over a period of time.
On the other aspects, I think you are mistaken on of all of them.
We already have decades of data that 20mph limits in residential areas are not just performative. Just in Wales in year one overall KSI were down by 1/4 to 1/3, and even insurance premiums fell. That argument is over - they will be throughout England in a decade or so, just depending on political will. It is also the case that very large numbers of collision happen soon after leavign, or shortly before returning to, home.
We already have age gated licenses - at 17. We already ban vehicles with poor forward visibility, and things that prevent good visibility - uncleared snow, for example, or too dark tints, or bonnet protrusions, or windscreen blocking camera placement.
We already restrict use of motor vehicles extensively. We have speed limits, you cannot take one into Meadow Hall, speed limits, keep off pavements, do not drive into schoolyard at breaktime or across Zebra crossings mowing people down, not if you are blind or drunk or have fits, and the rest. Use of motor vehicles is a restricted privilege, which is how it should be.
The current Road Safety Strategy, brought forward in January this year, will bring forward many of these measures, including compulsory eye tests for people over 70, reduced drink drive limits, and several thing around young drivers. Keir Starmer is a very timid politician, and as far as I can see the ones he has proposed are only those which already have widespread and evidence-based support. Where I have seen them in the Telegraph they have strong support below the line, which is remarkable for a Starmer policy.
It's an enormous missed opportunity, but at least he won't be sitting on his bottom, which is something. Safety will improve.
As a former member of the psychology union, I'd be concerned about cars replacing buttons with tablets that mean drivers flap about with (for most people) their non-dominant hand for many seconds at a time, and then there is a further second or two while drivers refocus their eyes from 18 inches to 100 yards in front. On the latter point, I'd also wonder about some satnav displays.
Not just drivers either. Pedestrians in their own bubble of phones or music wandering out into the road or being unable to hear cars and bikes. And we know this must happen given the number of phones snatched out of their owners' hands.
Long, self-indulgent post alert: I've joined the Greens.
I'm intend to start (gently) door knocking for them and trying to get involved in the development of their economic policy. If anyone can be bothered I'd welcome being challenged on the reasoning below. If not, please feel free to ignore.
- For my whole adult life politics has been the art of finding the least worst option to support, and currently I feel that is the Greens (despite their laughable economic policy). - Capitalism as a vehicle for economic development has been spectacularly successful but has increasingly been captured by interests that don't serve us well. As an example the monetisation of ever-wider aspects of life (I'm particularly thinking of the monetisation of our attention through our phones and the concomitant promotion of widespread narcissism) is, I think, creating externalities that we will be paying for for generations to come. - Therefore I am looking for a political project that attempts to address the structure of our economic system, rather than tinkering with tax rates and our generosity or otherwise to those at the wrong end of inequality. - This is tempered by a natural conservatism; for a long time I have felt that reforming our economic structures is much more likely to make things worse rather than better. However, unless the next couple of years surprise on the upside (and economically this seems very unlikely) I think the next election is going to be won by a non-establishment party and given a forced choice between the Greens and Reform the Greens are a clear choice for me. - Finally, I have a three year old and a six year old. As someone relatively wealthy but with a big mortgage I have quite a lot to lose personally from a green government. But I would gladly lose that to invest in a project that might make the UK a healthier place (in the broadest sense) for my kids to grow up in.
What I want to vote for economically: - A gradual experiment of enforced worker- and community-representation on the boards of private companies to counterbalance the short-termism of our current emphasis on shareholder value. - A gradual move from taxing productivity (e.g. wages) towards taxing non-productivity (principally a wealth tax on property) - A gradual implementation of a maximum ratio between the lowest paid and the highest paid in any institution. - A commitment to gradually reducing our national debt through a combination of tax rises and spending cuts so that we are less beholden to bond markets in the medium term.
'A commitment to gradually reducing our national debt through a combination of tax rises and SPENDING CUTS' well the Greens will disappoint you on that score for starters it will be massive tax rises to fund massive spending with them
Iran president: 'His Holiness Pope Louis XIV, I condemn the insult to Your Excellency on behalf of the great nation of Iran, and declare that the desecration of Jesus, the prophet of peace and brotherhood, is not acceptable to any free person. I wish you glory by Allah.'
Iran's social media savvy has been a genuine eye opener to me. Loved the Lego model posts.
Ironic that Iran's social media team is trumping the American president whose election was in large part due to his own mastery of social media.
Far from me, an independence supporter, to offer help to unionists. However, instead of bemoaning the success of the SNP, why don’t you question why all the unionist parties in Scotland are such abject failures? Hint, constant negativity isn’t helping you. Not having alternative policies that are attractive to voters isn’t helping, either. Uninspiring leaders also aren’t helping. Your only hope of improvement is to offer inspiring leaders and policies. What about, for example, supporting devo-max? Where will your next leaders come from? Your existing supply of placemen and women? No wonder the SNP are still the most popular party in Scotland.
Or energy pricing, which now sees the SE of England’s interests diametrically opposed to those of Scotland.
I think this is so fundamental to the economy and household finances there is simply no way for a UK-wide party to win in Scotland. The only caveat is that thr SNP have failed to really push this home yet.
If common energy pricing is so diametrically opposed to Scotland's interest why do you think the Scottish government privately lobbied the UK government to keep it? Now they can say the opposite in public because it's good politics and they are not the ones making the decision.
The issue of offshore wind curtailment arises because the grid can't cope. The UK Grid is barely fit for purpose today and certainly not for the energy transformation. The business case wouldn't be there for Scottish offshore wind without the UK market and a grid upgrade. Equally there needs to bea grid upgrade under any energy mix. The cost of upgrades specifically for offshore wind probably only applies to Northern Scotland and can be seen as part of the costs of that technology. The English and southern Scottish upgrades would need to happen for other technologies. Once the grid is upgraded there is no need for differential pricing. At most zonal pricing makes sense as an interim measure
Nodal pricing (in a perfect world) would allow the market to determine where energy is generated, what transmission is built, and where it is consumed.
I have nothing against improving transmission if the market price means it makes sense to do. But if all the power is up here, it makes more sense to build your factory here too rather than shift that power hundreds of miles south. Or the inverse - if all the demand is in the south, why are we building yet more turbines in Scotland?
Just seems to me like a perfect example of where a market can be used to achieve an efficient outcome.
Presumably the SCon numbers mean Swinney isn’t pushing Indy ref II hard enough.
We will see what happens after the debate yesterday. Swinney was pushing indyref2 again and Findlay the opposition leader pushing hardest against it, Sarwar and Cole Hamilton were just focusing on SNP NHS failures and Offord on anti immigration rhetoric
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as "Farage in braids" has been characterized by critics and commentators as a formulation that blends elements of racism, misogyny, and political disrespect, rather than fitting into a single categegory
Based on political commentary and public discourse surrounding the Conservative leadership, here is the breakdown of why this description is controversial:
Racialized Misogyny: The phrase is widely seen as offensive because it reduces a Black woman's political identity to her hair ("braids") while associating her with Nigel Farage, a figure often criticized by anti-racism groups.
"Blackface of White Supremacy" Analogy: Some political commentary has used extreme terms to describe this type of comparison, implying that it attempts to delegitimize a black woman's agency by suggesting she is merely a conduit for white male political ideology, which is a form of intersectional attack.
Political Delegitimization: The comment is intended to mock Badenoch's ideological stance by claiming she is merely a female, ethnically diverse version of a political rival, thus undermining her own political identity and leadership capabilities.
Misogynoir: Critics argue this language constitutes "misogynoir"—a specific blend of misogyny and racism directed at Black women—by using a stereotype-laden term ("braids") to attack her intellectual and political independence.
While it is a personal attack, the consensus among critics is that it is not merely political banter, but a slur that relies on stereotypes about race and gender to attack a politician's legitimacy.
That's generative AI output.
I asked the question as it was used on a comment and this was the AI output
Is anyone challenging it
Yes, AI produces nonsense and Vanilla thinks you’re bot.
Usual garbage from Farage. ..For once, Farage did not seem to have a snap response. After saying that was “broad canvas” question, and pausing for a moment, he replied:
He’s 80 in a few weeks’ time. He has a very unusual way of operating. And let’s go back 10 years. People were asking that question 10 years ago. There were Democrats screaming ten years ago that the 25th amendment should be moved in Congress. And those same voices are saying the same things now. I don’t think he’s changed very much at all, which some people like and a lot of people don’t...
People were saying he should be impeached a decade back. And he should have been permanently barred from office.
Anyone who says he hasn't deteriorated is either lying, or remarkably stupid.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as "Farage in braids" has been characterized by critics and commentators as a formulation that blends elements of racism, misogyny, and political disrespect, rather than fitting into a single categegory
Based on political commentary and public discourse surrounding the Conservative leadership, here is the breakdown of why this description is controversial:
Racialized Misogyny: The phrase is widely seen as offensive because it reduces a Black woman's political identity to her hair ("braids") while associating her with Nigel Farage, a figure often criticized by anti-racism groups.
"Blackface of White Supremacy" Analogy: Some political commentary has used extreme terms to describe this type of comparison, implying that it attempts to delegitimize a black woman's agency by suggesting she is merely a conduit for white male political ideology, which is a form of intersectional attack.
Political Delegitimization: The comment is intended to mock Badenoch's ideological stance by claiming she is merely a female, ethnically diverse version of a political rival, thus undermining her own political identity and leadership capabilities.
Misogynoir: Critics argue this language constitutes "misogynoir"—a specific blend of misogyny and racism directed at Black women—by using a stereotype-laden term ("braids") to attack her intellectual and political independence.
While it is a personal attack, the consensus among critics is that it is not merely political banter, but a slur that relies on stereotypes about race and gender to attack a politician's legitimacy.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as "Farage in braids" has been characterized by critics and commentators as a formulation that blends elements of racism, misogyny, and political disrespect, rather than fitting into a single categegory
Based on political commentary and public discourse surrounding the Conservative leadership, here is the breakdown of why this description is controversial:
Racialized Misogyny: The phrase is widely seen as offensive because it reduces a Black woman's political identity to her hair ("braids") while associating her with Nigel Farage, a figure often criticized by anti-racism groups.
"Blackface of White Supremacy" Analogy: Some political commentary has used extreme terms to describe this type of comparison, implying that it attempts to delegitimize a black woman's agency by suggesting she is merely a conduit for white male political ideology, which is a form of intersectional attack.
Political Delegitimization: The comment is intended to mock Badenoch's ideological stance by claiming she is merely a female, ethnically diverse version of a political rival, thus undermining her own political identity and leadership capabilities.
Misogynoir: Critics argue this language constitutes "misogynoir"—a specific blend of misogyny and racism directed at Black women—by using a stereotype-laden term ("braids") to attack her intellectual and political independence.
While it is a personal attack, the consensus among critics is that it is not merely political banter, but a slur that relies on stereotypes about race and gender to attack a politician's legitimacy.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as "Farage in braids" has been characterized by critics and commentators as a formulation that blends elements of racism, misogyny, and political disrespect, rather than fitting into a single categegory
Based on political commentary and public discourse surrounding the Conservative leadership, here is the breakdown of why this description is controversial:
Racialized Misogyny: The phrase is widely seen as offensive because it reduces a Black woman's political identity to her hair ("braids") while associating her with Nigel Farage, a figure often criticized by anti-racism groups.
"Blackface of White Supremacy" Analogy: Some political commentary has used extreme terms to describe this type of comparison, implying that it attempts to delegitimize a black woman's agency by suggesting she is merely a conduit for white male political ideology, which is a form of intersectional attack.
Political Delegitimization: The comment is intended to mock Badenoch's ideological stance by claiming she is merely a female, ethnically diverse version of a political rival, thus undermining her own political identity and leadership capabilities.
Misogynoir: Critics argue this language constitutes "misogynoir"—a specific blend of misogyny and racism directed at Black women—by using a stereotype-laden term ("braids") to attack her intellectual and political independence.
While it is a personal attack, the consensus among critics is that it is not merely political banter, but a slur that relies on stereotypes about race and gender to attack a politician's legitimacy.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as "Farage in braids" has been characterized by critics and commentators as a formulation that blends elements of racism, misogyny, and political disrespect, rather than fitting into a single categegory
Based on political commentary and public discourse surrounding the Conservative leadership, here is the breakdown of why this description is controversial:
Racialized Misogyny: The phrase is widely seen as offensive because it reduces a Black woman's political identity to her hair ("braids") while associating her with Nigel Farage, a figure often criticized by anti-racism groups.
"Blackface of White Supremacy" Analogy: Some political commentary has used extreme terms to describe this type of comparison, implying that it attempts to delegitimize a black woman's agency by suggesting she is merely a conduit for white male political ideology, which is a form of intersectional attack.
Political Delegitimization: The comment is intended to mock Badenoch's ideological stance by claiming she is merely a female, ethnically diverse version of a political rival, thus undermining her own political identity and leadership capabilities.
Misogynoir: Critics argue this language constitutes "misogynoir"—a specific blend of misogyny and racism directed at Black women—by using a stereotype-laden term ("braids") to attack her intellectual and political independence.
While it is a personal attack, the consensus among critics is that it is not merely political banter, but a slur that relies on stereotypes about race and gender to attack a politician's legitimacy.
That's generative AI output.
I asked the question as it was used on a comment and this was the AI output
Is anyone challenging it
Yes, AI produces nonsense and Vanilla thinks you’re bot.
I just find that unacceptable
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as Farage in braids in offensive
I have made my position clear and if you want to ban me than that is your right
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as "Farage in braids" has been characterized by critics and commentators as a formulation that blends elements of racism, misogyny, and political disrespect, rather than fitting into a single categegory
Based on political commentary and public discourse surrounding the Conservative leadership, here is the breakdown of why this description is controversial:
Racialized Misogyny: The phrase is widely seen as offensive because it reduces a Black woman's political identity to her hair ("braids") while associating her with Nigel Farage, a figure often criticized by anti-racism groups.
"Blackface of White Supremacy" Analogy: Some political commentary has used extreme terms to describe this type of comparison, implying that it attempts to delegitimize a black woman's agency by suggesting she is merely a conduit for white male political ideology, which is a form of intersectional attack.
Political Delegitimization: The comment is intended to mock Badenoch's ideological stance by claiming she is merely a female, ethnically diverse version of a political rival, thus undermining her own political identity and leadership capabilities.
Misogynoir: Critics argue this language constitutes "misogynoir"—a specific blend of misogyny and racism directed at Black women—by using a stereotype-laden term ("braids") to attack her intellectual and political independence.
While it is a personal attack, the consensus among critics is that it is not merely political banter, but a slur that relies on stereotypes about race and gender to attack a politician's legitimacy.
That's generative AI output.
I asked the question as it was used on a comment and this was the AI output
Is anyone challenging it
Quite honestly I think a short ban would be appropriate for anyone dumping this kind of crap into the forum, particularly without full disclosure.
Long, self-indulgent post alert: I've joined the Greens.
I'm intend to start (gently) door knocking for them and trying to get involved in the development of their economic policy. If anyone can be bothered I'd welcome being challenged on the reasoning below. If not, please feel free to ignore.
- For my whole adult life politics has been the art of finding the least worst option to support, and currently I feel that is the Greens (despite their laughable economic policy). - Capitalism as a vehicle for economic development has been spectacularly successful but has increasingly been captured by interests that don't serve us well. As an example the monetisation of ever-wider aspects of life (I'm particularly thinking of the monetisation of our attention through our phones and the concomitant promotion of widespread narcissism) is, I think, creating externalities that we will be paying for for generations to come. - Therefore I am looking for a political project that attempts to address the structure of our economic system, rather than tinkering with tax rates and our generosity or otherwise to those at the wrong end of inequality. - This is tempered by a natural conservatism; for a long time I have felt that reforming our economic structures is much more likely to make things worse rather than better. However, unless the next couple of years surprise on the upside (and economically this seems very unlikely) I think the next election is going to be won by a non-establishment party and given a forced choice between the Greens and Reform the Greens are a clear choice for me. - Finally, I have a three year old and a six year old. As someone relatively wealthy but with a big mortgage I have quite a lot to lose personally from a green government. But I would gladly lose that to invest in a project that might make the UK a healthier place (in the broadest sense) for my kids to grow up in.
What I want to vote for economically: - A gradual experiment of enforced worker- and community-representation on the boards of private companies to counterbalance the short-termism of our current emphasis on shareholder value. - A gradual move from taxing productivity (e.g. wages) towards taxing non-productivity (principally a wealth tax on property) - A gradual implementation of a maximum ratio between the lowest paid and the highest paid in any institution. - A commitment to gradually reducing our national debt through a combination of tax rises and spending cuts so that we are less beholden to bond markets in the medium term.
'A commitment to gradually reducing our national debt through a combination of tax rises and SPENDING CUTS' well the Greens will disappoint you on that score for starters it will be massive tax rises to fund massive spending with them
Oh I agree. As I said, the greens are merely the least worst option at the moment in my view.
As an aside, when the status quo is membership of something, and the change proposed is to leave that thing, a positive case for membership is pretty hard to distinguish from a negative argument about how bad leaving would be. Mathematically the two are the same, but the change proposed is to leave, so the status quo argument is always going to be more negative, because people already enjoy the benefits of the status quo.
I always thought it was a weird argument that Remain failed to make the positive case for EU membership.
Yes I also think that point is a bit of a nonsense. Euro-idealism, 'this noble project forged to secure peace and prosperity in a war-weary Europe' etc, isn't rife in the UK and a campaign majoring on that would probably have lost by more than 4 pts. So what you're left with is the pragmatic relative messaging, ie Brexit will damage the economy and our influence in the world. That is a positive case for membership and has the further commendation of being the gods own truth.
Long, self-indulgent post alert: I've joined the Greens.
I'm intend to start (gently) door knocking for them and trying to get involved in the development of their economic policy. If anyone can be bothered I'd welcome being challenged on the reasoning below. If not, please feel free to ignore.
- For my whole adult life politics has been the art of finding the least worst option to support, and currently I feel that is the Greens (despite their laughable economic policy). - Capitalism as a vehicle for economic development has been spectacularly successful but has increasingly been captured by interests that don't serve us well. As an example the monetisation of ever-wider aspects of life (I'm particularly thinking of the monetisation of our attention through our phones and the concomitant promotion of widespread narcissism) is, I think, creating externalities that we will be paying for for generations to come. - Therefore I am looking for a political project that attempts to address the structure of our economic system, rather than tinkering with tax rates and our generosity or otherwise to those at the wrong end of inequality. - This is tempered by a natural conservatism; for a long time I have felt that reforming our economic structures is much more likely to make things worse rather than better. However, unless the next couple of years surprise on the upside (and economically this seems very unlikely) I think the next election is going to be won by a non-establishment party and given a forced choice between the Greens and Reform the Greens are a clear choice for me. - Finally, I have a three year old and a six year old. As someone relatively wealthy but with a big mortgage I have quite a lot to lose personally from a green government. But I would gladly lose that to invest in a project that might make the UK a healthier place (in the broadest sense) for my kids to grow up in.
What I want to vote for economically: - A gradual experiment of enforced worker- and community-representation on the boards of private companies to counterbalance the short-termism of our current emphasis on shareholder value. - A gradual move from taxing productivity (e.g. wages) towards taxing non-productivity (principally a wealth tax on property) - A gradual implementation of a maximum ratio between the lowest paid and the highest paid in any institution. - A commitment to gradually reducing our national debt through a combination of tax rises and spending cuts so that we are less beholden to bond markets in the medium term.
'A commitment to gradually reducing our national debt through a combination of tax rises and SPENDING CUTS' well the Greens will disappoint you on that score for starters it will be massive tax rises to fund massive spending with them
Oh I agree. As I said, the greens are merely the least worst option at the moment in my view.
Fair play to you for wanting to join and make the changes from within. Good luck.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as "Farage in braids" has been characterized by critics and commentators as a formulation that blends elements of racism, misogyny, and political disrespect, rather than fitting into a single categegory
Based on political commentary and public discourse surrounding the Conservative leadership, here is the breakdown of why this description is controversial:
Racialized Misogyny: The phrase is widely seen as offensive because it reduces a Black woman's political identity to her hair ("braids") while associating her with Nigel Farage, a figure often criticized by anti-racism groups.
"Blackface of White Supremacy" Analogy: Some political commentary has used extreme terms to describe this type of comparison, implying that it attempts to delegitimize a black woman's agency by suggesting she is merely a conduit for white male political ideology, which is a form of intersectional attack.
Political Delegitimization: The comment is intended to mock Badenoch's ideological stance by claiming she is merely a female, ethnically diverse version of a political rival, thus undermining her own political identity and leadership capabilities.
Misogynoir: Critics argue this language constitutes "misogynoir"—a specific blend of misogyny and racism directed at Black women—by using a stereotype-laden term ("braids") to attack her intellectual and political independence.
While it is a personal attack, the consensus among critics is that it is not merely political banter, but a slur that relies on stereotypes about race and gender to attack a politician's legitimacy.
That's generative AI output.
Big G
Thats desperation.
You need help.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as Farage in braids in offensive
I do not recile my position and if I am banned than so be it
I see Nicola Sturgeon has a new job: Chair of the Board of Trustees of Safe Passage International, a charity seeking to assist people "forced by war, famine, or climate breakdown, to flee their own homes to find sanctuary elsewhere."
Long, self-indulgent post alert: I've joined the Greens.
I'm intend to start (gently) door knocking for them and trying to get involved in the development of their economic policy. If anyone can be bothered I'd welcome being challenged on the reasoning below. If not, please feel free to ignore.
- For my whole adult life politics has been the art of finding the least worst option to support, and currently I feel that is the Greens (despite their laughable economic policy). - Capitalism as a vehicle for economic development has been spectacularly successful but has increasingly been captured by interests that don't serve us well. As an example the monetisation of ever-wider aspects of life (I'm particularly thinking of the monetisation of our attention through our phones and the concomitant promotion of widespread narcissism) is, I think, creating externalities that we will be paying for for generations to come. - Therefore I am looking for a political project that attempts to address the structure of our economic system, rather than tinkering with tax rates and our generosity or otherwise to those at the wrong end of inequality. - This is tempered by a natural conservatism; for a long time I have felt that reforming our economic structures is much more likely to make things worse rather than better. However, unless the next couple of years surprise on the upside (and economically this seems very unlikely) I think the next election is going to be won by a non-establishment party and given a forced choice between the Greens and Reform the Greens are a clear choice for me. - Finally, I have a three year old and a six year old. As someone relatively wealthy but with a big mortgage I have quite a lot to lose personally from a green government. But I would gladly lose that to invest in a project that might make the UK a healthier place (in the broadest sense) for my kids to grow up in.
What I want to vote for economically: - A gradual experiment of enforced worker- and community-representation on the boards of private companies to counterbalance the short-termism of our current emphasis on shareholder value. - A gradual move from taxing productivity (e.g. wages) towards taxing non-productivity (principally a wealth tax on property) - A gradual implementation of a maximum ratio between the lowest paid and the highest paid in any institution. - A commitment to gradually reducing our national debt through a combination of tax rises and spending cuts so that we are less beholden to bond markets in the medium term.
'A commitment to gradually reducing our national debt through a combination of tax rises and SPENDING CUTS' well the Greens will disappoint you on that score for starters it will be massive tax rises to fund massive spending with them
Oh I agree. As I said, the greens are merely the least worst option at the moment in my view.
I can't get past the economic vandalism they would wreak. I would genuinely move my business and my own tax residence out of the UK if they got in. Would result in the loss of double figures jobs and a lot of tax revenue.
I'm not talking about moving to Dubai or some other tax haven. Just one of half a dozen pleasant European liberal democracies with a better compromise between tax burden and social benefit.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as "Farage in braids" has been characterized by critics and commentators as a formulation that blends elements of racism, misogyny, and political disrespect, rather than fitting into a single categegory
Based on political commentary and public discourse surrounding the Conservative leadership, here is the breakdown of why this description is controversial:
Racialized Misogyny: The phrase is widely seen as offensive because it reduces a Black woman's political identity to her hair ("braids") while associating her with Nigel Farage, a figure often criticized by anti-racism groups.
"Blackface of White Supremacy" Analogy: Some political commentary has used extreme terms to describe this type of comparison, implying that it attempts to delegitimize a black woman's agency by suggesting she is merely a conduit for white male political ideology, which is a form of intersectional attack.
Political Delegitimization: The comment is intended to mock Badenoch's ideological stance by claiming she is merely a female, ethnically diverse version of a political rival, thus undermining her own political identity and leadership capabilities.
Misogynoir: Critics argue this language constitutes "misogynoir"—a specific blend of misogyny and racism directed at Black women—by using a stereotype-laden term ("braids") to attack her intellectual and political independence.
While it is a personal attack, the consensus among critics is that it is not merely political banter, but a slur that relies on stereotypes about race and gender to attack a politician's legitimacy.
That's generative AI output.
Big G
Thats desperation.
You need help.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as Farage in braids in offensive
I do not recile my position and if I am banned than so be it
I see Nicola Sturgeon has a new job: Chair of the Board of Trustees of Safe Passage International, a charity seeking to assist people "forced by war, famine, or climate breakdown, to flee their own homes to find sanctuary elsewhere."
I see Nicola Sturgeon has a new job: Chair of the Board of Trustees of Safe Passage International, a charity seeking to assist people "forced by war, famine, or climate breakdown, to flee their own homes to find sanctuary elsewhere."
Might have to add "forced by partners criminal proclivities" - although not proven yet, of course... I'm sure she "cannot recall" having a dodgy camper van on the drive.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as "Farage in braids" has been characterized by critics and commentators as a formulation that blends elements of racism, misogyny, and political disrespect, rather than fitting into a single categegory
Based on political commentary and public discourse surrounding the Conservative leadership, here is the breakdown of why this description is controversial:
Racialized Misogyny: The phrase is widely seen as offensive because it reduces a Black woman's political identity to her hair ("braids") while associating her with Nigel Farage, a figure often criticized by anti-racism groups.
"Blackface of White Supremacy" Analogy: Some political commentary has used extreme terms to describe this type of comparison, implying that it attempts to delegitimize a black woman's agency by suggesting she is merely a conduit for white male political ideology, which is a form of intersectional attack.
Political Delegitimization: The comment is intended to mock Badenoch's ideological stance by claiming she is merely a female, ethnically diverse version of a political rival, thus undermining her own political identity and leadership capabilities.
Misogynoir: Critics argue this language constitutes "misogynoir"—a specific blend of misogyny and racism directed at Black women—by using a stereotype-laden term ("braids") to attack her intellectual and political independence.
While it is a personal attack, the consensus among critics is that it is not merely political banter, but a slur that relies on stereotypes about race and gender to attack a politician's legitimacy.
That's generative AI output.
Big G
Thats desperation.
You need help.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as Farage in braids in offensive
I do not recile my position and if I am banned than so be it
Would be the work of seconds to get an image AI'd up to show just that... But please PB, don't do it!
Bad news for everyone betting on Leicester City to go down.
The Baggies should be relegated to League 2 if they cost punters money.
West Brom face points deduction as Championship relegation battle takes fresh twist
Exclusive: Albion charged for alleged breach of financial rules but are looking to delay any punishment to next season
West Bromwich Albion have been charged with an alleged breach of financial rules in a shock development for the Championship’s relegation battle.
Telegraph Sport understands West Brom have allegedly breached English Football League’s profit and sustainability rules for last season and are facing the threat of a points deduction.
Under English Football League guidelines, any sporting sanction from the previous season must be applied in the following campaign, which would represent a severe blow to Albion’s hopes of survival with four games left.
It is understood, however, that the Championship club are attempting to delay any punishment until the 2026-27 season.
West Brom are 20th in the table after seven matches unbeaten under caretaker manager James Morrison, two points above Oxford United, who occupy the final relegation place. Leicester were deducted six points in February for breaching financial rules, failing in an appeal to reduce the sanction last week.
Wait for season to end Baggies stay up by 3 points and goal difference and accept 3 point deduction.
Birmingham had a 9 point deduction under previous regime and took it "in season" but we were in top 10 at the time and never in any danger with the deduction.
WBA have sailed very close to the wind for a while.
I don't as a Blues fan take any positives from decent Clubs like Leicester or WBA being penalised as the fans suffer not the perpetrators.
Clubs like Coventry show there is a way back although Mark Robins deserves far more of the credit than lucky Frank in my opinion.
I see Nicola Sturgeon has a new job: Chair of the Board of Trustees of Safe Passage International, a charity seeking to assist people "forced by war, famine, or climate breakdown, to flee their own homes to find sanctuary elsewhere."
Might have to add "forced by partners criminal proclivities" - although not proven yet, of course... I'm sure she "cannot recall" having a dodgy camper van on the drive.
I wondered whether the camper van might prove useful.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as "Farage in braids" has been characterized by critics and commentators as a formulation that blends elements of racism, misogyny, and political disrespect, rather than fitting into a single categegory
Based on political commentary and public discourse surrounding the Conservative leadership, here is the breakdown of why this description is controversial:
Racialized Misogyny: The phrase is widely seen as offensive because it reduces a Black woman's political identity to her hair ("braids") while associating her with Nigel Farage, a figure often criticized by anti-racism groups.
"Blackface of White Supremacy" Analogy: Some political commentary has used extreme terms to describe this type of comparison, implying that it attempts to delegitimize a black woman's agency by suggesting she is merely a conduit for white male political ideology, which is a form of intersectional attack.
Political Delegitimization: The comment is intended to mock Badenoch's ideological stance by claiming she is merely a female, ethnically diverse version of a political rival, thus undermining her own political identity and leadership capabilities.
Misogynoir: Critics argue this language constitutes "misogynoir"—a specific blend of misogyny and racism directed at Black women—by using a stereotype-laden term ("braids") to attack her intellectual and political independence.
While it is a personal attack, the consensus among critics is that it is not merely political banter, but a slur that relies on stereotypes about race and gender to attack a politician's legitimacy.
That's generative AI output.
Big G
Thats desperation.
You need help.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as Farage in braids in offensive
I do not recile my position and if I am banned than so be it
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as "Farage in braids" has been characterized by critics and commentators as a formulation that blends elements of racism, misogyny, and political disrespect, rather than fitting into a single categegory
Based on political commentary and public discourse surrounding the Conservative leadership, here is the breakdown of why this description is controversial:
Racialized Misogyny: The phrase is widely seen as offensive because it reduces a Black woman's political identity to her hair ("braids") while associating her with Nigel Farage, a figure often criticized by anti-racism groups.
"Blackface of White Supremacy" Analogy: Some political commentary has used extreme terms to describe this type of comparison, implying that it attempts to delegitimize a black woman's agency by suggesting she is merely a conduit for white male political ideology, which is a form of intersectional attack.
Political Delegitimization: The comment is intended to mock Badenoch's ideological stance by claiming she is merely a female, ethnically diverse version of a political rival, thus undermining her own political identity and leadership capabilities.
Misogynoir: Critics argue this language constitutes "misogynoir"—a specific blend of misogyny and racism directed at Black women—by using a stereotype-laden term ("braids") to attack her intellectual and political independence.
While it is a personal attack, the consensus among critics is that it is not merely political banter, but a slur that relies on stereotypes about race and gender to attack a politician's legitimacy.
That's generative AI output.
Big G
Thats desperation.
You need help.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as Farage in braids in offensive
I do not recile my position and if I am banned than so be it
Is Farage in a skirt offensive?
Any picture of Farage is offensive!
And yet TSE cannot help himself but use 'that' photo whenever he can.
Bad news for everyone betting on Leicester City to go down.
The Baggies should be relegated to League 2 if they cost punters money.
West Brom face points deduction as Championship relegation battle takes fresh twist
Exclusive: Albion charged for alleged breach of financial rules but are looking to delay any punishment to next season
West Bromwich Albion have been charged with an alleged breach of financial rules in a shock development for the Championship’s relegation battle.
Telegraph Sport understands West Brom have allegedly breached English Football League’s profit and sustainability rules for last season and are facing the threat of a points deduction.
Under English Football League guidelines, any sporting sanction from the previous season must be applied in the following campaign, which would represent a severe blow to Albion’s hopes of survival with four games left.
It is understood, however, that the Championship club are attempting to delay any punishment until the 2026-27 season.
West Brom are 20th in the table after seven matches unbeaten under caretaker manager James Morrison, two points above Oxford United, who occupy the final relegation place. Leicester were deducted six points in February for breaching financial rules, failing in an appeal to reduce the sanction last week.
Wait for season to end Baggies stay up by 3 points and goal difference and accept 3 point deduction.
Birmingham had a 9 point deduction under previous regime and took it "in season" but we were in top 10 at the time and never in any danger with the deduction.
WBA have sailed very close to the wind for a while.
I don't as a Blues fan take any positives from decent Clubs like Leicester or WBA being penalised as the fans suffer not the perpetrators.
Clubs like Coventry show there is a way back although Mark Robins deserves far more of the credit than lucky Frank in my opinion.
Legal cases from one or more of the relegated if the EFL don't follow a 'reasonable' process.
Long, self-indulgent post alert: I've joined the Greens.
I'm intend to start (gently) door knocking for them and trying to get involved in the development of their economic policy. If anyone can be bothered I'd welcome being challenged on the reasoning below. If not, please feel free to ignore.
- For my whole adult life politics has been the art of finding the least worst option to support, and currently I feel that is the Greens (despite their laughable economic policy). - Capitalism as a vehicle for economic development has been spectacularly successful but has increasingly been captured by interests that don't serve us well. As an example the monetisation of ever-wider aspects of life (I'm particularly thinking of the monetisation of our attention through our phones and the concomitant promotion of widespread narcissism) is, I think, creating externalities that we will be paying for for generations to come. - Therefore I am looking for a political project that attempts to address the structure of our economic system, rather than tinkering with tax rates and our generosity or otherwise to those at the wrong end of inequality. - This is tempered by a natural conservatism; for a long time I have felt that reforming our economic structures is much more likely to make things worse rather than better. However, unless the next couple of years surprise on the upside (and economically this seems very unlikely) I think the next election is going to be won by a non-establishment party and given a forced choice between the Greens and Reform the Greens are a clear choice for me. - Finally, I have a three year old and a six year old. As someone relatively wealthy but with a big mortgage I have quite a lot to lose personally from a green government. But I would gladly lose that to invest in a project that might make the UK a healthier place (in the broadest sense) for my kids to grow up in.
What I want to vote for economically: - A gradual experiment of enforced worker- and community-representation on the boards of private companies to counterbalance the short-termism of our current emphasis on shareholder value. - A gradual move from taxing productivity (e.g. wages) towards taxing non-productivity (principally a wealth tax on property) - A gradual implementation of a maximum ratio between the lowest paid and the highest paid in any institution. - A commitment to gradually reducing our national debt through a combination of tax rises and spending cuts so that we are less beholden to bond markets in the medium term.
'A commitment to gradually reducing our national debt through a combination of tax rises and SPENDING CUTS' well the Greens will disappoint you on that score for starters it will be massive tax rises to fund massive spending with them
Oh I agree. As I said, the greens are merely the least worst option at the moment in my view.
I can't get past the economic vandalism they would wreak. I would genuinely move my business and my own tax residence out of the UK if they got in. Would result in the loss of double figures jobs and a lot of tax revenue.
I'm not talking about moving to Dubai or some other tax haven. Just one of half a dozen pleasant European liberal democracies with a better compromise between tax burden and social benefit.
Agreed it is by far their weakest point. Head in the sand denial of the need to support rewards for productive risk taking.
But in the short term I think Reform's economic incoherence would wreak just as much havoc, and in the medium to long term a continuation of our current model of capitalism will be just as destructive.
I hold out hope for my kids that there is a way to continue to make the UK an attractive place to invest for those like you who run a business whilst shifting away from a model that seeks to commodify everything.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as "Farage in braids" has been characterized by critics and commentators as a formulation that blends elements of racism, misogyny, and political disrespect, rather than fitting into a single categegory
Based on political commentary and public discourse surrounding the Conservative leadership, here is the breakdown of why this description is controversial:
Racialized Misogyny: The phrase is widely seen as offensive because it reduces a Black woman's political identity to her hair ("braids") while associating her with Nigel Farage, a figure often criticized by anti-racism groups.
"Blackface of White Supremacy" Analogy: Some political commentary has used extreme terms to describe this type of comparison, implying that it attempts to delegitimize a black woman's agency by suggesting she is merely a conduit for white male political ideology, which is a form of intersectional attack.
Political Delegitimization: The comment is intended to mock Badenoch's ideological stance by claiming she is merely a female, ethnically diverse version of a political rival, thus undermining her own political identity and leadership capabilities.
Misogynoir: Critics argue this language constitutes "misogynoir"—a specific blend of misogyny and racism directed at Black women—by using a stereotype-laden term ("braids") to attack her intellectual and political independence.
While it is a personal attack, the consensus among critics is that it is not merely political banter, but a slur that relies on stereotypes about race and gender to attack a politician's legitimacy.
That's generative AI output.
Big G
Thats desperation.
You need help.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as Farage in braids in offensive
I do not recile my position and if I am banned than so be it
Is Farage in a skirt offensive?
Any picture of Farage is offensive!
And yet TSE cannot help himself but use 'that' photo whenever he can.
Fake news.
I promised an important lurker if Matt Goodwin lost the by-election I would never use that photograph.
"We asked participants where they thought Britain stood economically compared to our main competitors. It turns out voters are living in a dreamworld.
Nearly half of British voters think that we are as rich, or richer, than Switzerland. Over half think we are as rich or richer than Australia, Singapore, or Germany. And, incredibly, over half of us think Britain is as rich as, or richer, than the United States.
The truth of course is that we are poorer than all those countries – according to the IMF, we are 10 per cent poorer than Germany, 20 per cent poorer than Australia, about 40 per cent poorer than America or Singapore."
Is someone from the USA who has 2 weeks paid holiday not 5, who spends perhaps £10k per annum on healthcare that is free here, who gets little or no income when they are ill, and who on average will die 4 years earlier than other Western citizens really wealthier than a British citizen?
And that is leaving aside the distribution patterns of wealth.
I note that you havent consider the dystopian hell hole that is... Switzerland. Or Germany. Or Australia.
The problem remains what it has always been - inadequate levels of investment. Why we fail to invest as much as other countries is more of a mystery to me.
I think the main British issue is the people on our political Right have a weird, blind fetish about the USA .... even now as we watch it fall to pieces. So I comment on that.
No matter what happens, they will wreck the society. They will always live of past investment, and not support the future - so they can give a false impression to their supporters.
Just as they did for example with a highly successful policy such as Sure Start, or the initiative which cut out road deaths in half in a mere 9 years from 2000/1.
Even David Cameron - marketing himself as he did - did not give a damn, and just trampled it into the earth.
That's why in my view the Conservative Party - speaking as a former member - needs to die, and be replaced with something decent.
BiB - did road deaths double after that decision?
Here's the historical graph. They decided to stop trying, and progress stopped.
There's always a soft limit to how far casualty rates can be reduced without actually banning motor vehicles or significantly restricting their use, particularly in the UK where our rate is already very low.
Introducing 20mph limits all over the place is more or less performative; most accidents resulting in KSIs don't happen because someone is doing 30mph down a residential street, they happen on faster roads (particularly NSL roads) or because the driver is speeding. So reducing the limit buys almost no real decrease in casualties. But it lets the government say they're doing something.
Making a notable difference would require politically unpalatable decisions, like introducing age and power gated car licences, similar to the current motorcycle licence system. Make drivers do a mandatory competence check every few years. Ban vehicles with poor forward visibility, etc.
No government will do any of those, particularly give the experiment with age and power gates on bike licences is now acknowledged to have significantly reduce the number of people riding bikes, to the point where the DVSA are in the process of making it easier and cheaper for bikers to upgrade their licences.
I note that it is usually a moveable soft limit, based on many factors. In 1967 there were a lot of people opposed to breathalyzers; we turned that around. We are doing the same with mobile phone usage. Such is not difficult, but requires a little resolve, and application, over a period of time.
On the other aspects, I think you are mistaken on of all of them.
We already have decades of data that 20mph limits in residential areas are not just performative. Just in Wales in year one overall KSI were down by 1/4 to 1/3, and even insurance premiums fell. That argument is over - they will be throughout England in a decade or so, just depending on political will. It is also the case that very large numbers of collision happen soon after leavign, or shortly before returning to, home.
We already have age gated licenses - at 17. We already ban vehicles with poor forward visibility, and things that prevent good visibility - uncleared snow, for example, or too dark tints, or bonnet protrusions, or windscreen blocking camera placement.
We already restrict use of motor vehicles extensively. We have speed limits, you cannot take one into Meadow Hall, speed limits, keep off pavements, do not drive into schoolyard at breaktime or across Zebra crossings mowing people down, not if you are blind or drunk or have fits, and the rest. Use of motor vehicles is a restricted privilege, which is how it should be.
The current Road Safety Strategy, brought forward in January this year, will bring forward many of these measures, including compulsory eye tests for people over 70, reduced drink drive limits, and several thing around young drivers. Keir Starmer is a very timid politician, and as far as I can see the ones he has proposed are only those which already have widespread and evidence-based support. Where I have seen them in the Telegraph they have strong support below the line, which is remarkable for a Starmer policy.
It's an enormous missed opportunity, but at least he won't be sitting on his bottom, which is something. Safety will improve.
So where's the data? Somewhere there should be a spreadsheet with all the KSIs and an assessment of the contributory factors. You can then add up which factors contributed to the most deaths prioritise them for mitigation.
Far from me, an independence supporter, to offer help to unionists. However, instead of bemoaning the success of the SNP, why don’t you question why all the unionist parties in Scotland are such abject failures? Hint, constant negativity isn’t helping you. Not having alternative policies that are attractive to voters isn’t helping, either. Uninspiring leaders also aren’t helping. Your only hope of improvement is to offer inspiring leaders and policies. What about, for example, supporting devo-max? Where will your next leaders come from? Your existing supply of placemen and women? No wonder the SNP are still the most popular party in Scotland.
Or energy pricing, which now sees the SE of England’s interests diametrically opposed to those of Scotland.
I think this is so fundamental to the economy and household finances there is simply no way for a UK-wide party to win in Scotland. The only caveat is that thr SNP have failed to really push this home yet.
If common energy pricing is so diametrically opposed to Scotland's interest why do you think the Scottish government privately lobbied the UK government to keep it? Now they can say the opposite in public because it's good politics and they are not the ones making the decision.
The issue of offshore wind curtailment arises because the grid can't cope. The UK Grid is barely fit for purpose today and certainly not for the energy transformation. The business case wouldn't be there for Scottish offshore wind without the UK market and a grid upgrade. Equally there needs to bea grid upgrade under any energy mix. The cost of upgrades specifically for offshore wind probably only applies to Northern Scotland and can be seen as part of the costs of that technology. The English and southern Scottish upgrades would need to happen for other technologies. Once the grid is upgraded there is no need for differential pricing. At most zonal pricing makes sense as an interim measure
Nodal pricing (in a perfect world) would allow the market to determine where energy is generated, what transmission is built, and where it is consumed.
I have nothing against improving transmission if the market price means it makes sense to do. But if all the power is up here, it makes more sense to build your factory here too rather than shift that power hundreds of miles south. Or the inverse - if all the demand is in the south, why are we building yet more turbines in Scotland?
Just seems to me like a perfect example of where a market can be used to achieve an efficient outcome.
If you look at a map of prevalent winds, it correlates perfectly with the built and projected wind farms.
Long, self-indulgent post alert: I've joined the Greens.
I'm intend to start (gently) door knocking for them and trying to get involved in the development of their economic policy. If anyone can be bothered I'd welcome being challenged on the reasoning below. If not, please feel free to ignore.
- For my whole adult life politics has been the art of finding the least worst option to support, and currently I feel that is the Greens (despite their laughable economic policy). - Capitalism as a vehicle for economic development has been spectacularly successful but has increasingly been captured by interests that don't serve us well. As an example the monetisation of ever-wider aspects of life (I'm particularly thinking of the monetisation of our attention through our phones and the concomitant promotion of widespread narcissism) is, I think, creating externalities that we will be paying for for generations to come. - Therefore I am looking for a political project that attempts to address the structure of our economic system, rather than tinkering with tax rates and our generosity or otherwise to those at the wrong end of inequality. - This is tempered by a natural conservatism; for a long time I have felt that reforming our economic structures is much more likely to make things worse rather than better. However, unless the next couple of years surprise on the upside (and economically this seems very unlikely) I think the next election is going to be won by a non-establishment party and given a forced choice between the Greens and Reform the Greens are a clear choice for me. - Finally, I have a three year old and a six year old. As someone relatively wealthy but with a big mortgage I have quite a lot to lose personally from a green government. But I would gladly lose that to invest in a project that might make the UK a healthier place (in the broadest sense) for my kids to grow up in.
What I want to vote for economically: - A gradual experiment of enforced worker- and community-representation on the boards of private companies to counterbalance the short-termism of our current emphasis on shareholder value. - A gradual move from taxing productivity (e.g. wages) towards taxing non-productivity (principally a wealth tax on property) - A gradual implementation of a maximum ratio between the lowest paid and the highest paid in any institution. - A commitment to gradually reducing our national debt through a combination of tax rises and spending cuts so that we are less beholden to bond markets in the medium term.
'A commitment to gradually reducing our national debt through a combination of tax rises and SPENDING CUTS' well the Greens will disappoint you on that score for starters it will be massive tax rises to fund massive spending with them
Oh I agree. As I said, the greens are merely the least worst option at the moment in my view.
I can't get past the economic vandalism they would wreak. I would genuinely move my business and my own tax residence out of the UK if they got in. Would result in the loss of double figures jobs and a lot of tax revenue.
I'm not talking about moving to Dubai or some other tax haven. Just one of half a dozen pleasant European liberal democracies with a better compromise between tax burden and social benefit.
Agreed it is by far their weakest point. Head in the sand denial of the need to support rewards for productive risk taking.
But in the short term I think Reform's economic incoherence would wreak just as much havoc, and in the medium to long term a continuation of our current model of capitalism will be just as destructive.
I hold out hope for my kids that there is a way to continue to make the UK an attractive place to invest for those like you who run a business whilst shifting away from a model that seeks to commodify everything.
As I've said before I'm (probably) going to vote Green in the County Council elections because the candidate, as the sitting Councillor, is a good guy who works hard for his constituents. And because I know him, and have used his taxi; he's a self-employed taxi-driver.
And because I want the UK to be a better, greener, place where my grand-and great-grandchildren can have better lives.
Far from me, an independence supporter, to offer help to unionists. However, instead of bemoaning the success of the SNP, why don’t you question why all the unionist parties in Scotland are such abject failures? Hint, constant negativity isn’t helping you. Not having alternative policies that are attractive to voters isn’t helping, either. Uninspiring leaders also aren’t helping. Your only hope of improvement is to offer inspiring leaders and policies. What about, for example, supporting devo-max? Where will your next leaders come from? Your existing supply of placemen and women? No wonder the SNP are still the most popular party in Scotland.
Or energy pricing, which now sees the SE of England’s interests diametrically opposed to those of Scotland.
I think this is so fundamental to the economy and household finances there is simply no way for a UK-wide party to win in Scotland. The only caveat is that thr SNP have failed to really push this home yet.
If common energy pricing is so diametrically opposed to Scotland's interest why do you think the Scottish government privately lobbied the UK government to keep it? Now they can say the opposite in public because it's good politics and they are not the ones making the decision.
The issue of offshore wind curtailment arises because the grid can't cope. The UK Grid is barely fit for purpose today and certainly not for the energy transformation. The business case wouldn't be there for Scottish offshore wind without the UK market and a grid upgrade. Equally there needs to bea grid upgrade under any energy mix. The cost of upgrades specifically for offshore wind probably only applies to Northern Scotland and can be seen as part of the costs of that technology. The English and southern Scottish upgrades would need to happen for other technologies. Once the grid is upgraded there is no need for differential pricing. At most zonal pricing makes sense as an interim measure
Nodal pricing (in a perfect world) would allow the market to determine where energy is generated, what transmission is built, and where it is consumed.
I have nothing against improving transmission if the market price means it makes sense to do. But if all the power is up here, it makes more sense to build your factory here too rather than shift that power hundreds of miles south. Or the inverse - if all the demand is in the south, why are we building yet more turbines in Scotland?
Just seems to me like a perfect example of where a market can be used to achieve an efficient outcome.
If you look at a map of prevalent winds, it correlates perfectly with the built and projected wind farms.
Bit like the solar farms and sunshine.
Obviously we should be a great beneficiary of wind power. Oddly though it seems not!
Tidal then surely - we are pretty much the best placed to benefit. Again it seems not.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as "Farage in braids" has been characterized by critics and commentators as a formulation that blends elements of racism, misogyny, and political disrespect, rather than fitting into a single categegory
Based on political commentary and public discourse surrounding the Conservative leadership, here is the breakdown of why this description is controversial:
Racialized Misogyny: The phrase is widely seen as offensive because it reduces a Black woman's political identity to her hair ("braids") while associating her with Nigel Farage, a figure often criticized by anti-racism groups.
"Blackface of White Supremacy" Analogy: Some political commentary has used extreme terms to describe this type of comparison, implying that it attempts to delegitimize a black woman's agency by suggesting she is merely a conduit for white male political ideology, which is a form of intersectional attack.
Political Delegitimization: The comment is intended to mock Badenoch's ideological stance by claiming she is merely a female, ethnically diverse version of a political rival, thus undermining her own political identity and leadership capabilities.
Misogynoir: Critics argue this language constitutes "misogynoir"—a specific blend of misogyny and racism directed at Black women—by using a stereotype-laden term ("braids") to attack her intellectual and political independence.
While it is a personal attack, the consensus among critics is that it is not merely political banter, but a slur that relies on stereotypes about race and gender to attack a politician's legitimacy.
That's generative AI output.
Big G
Thats desperation.
You need help.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as Farage in braids in offensive
I do not recile my position and if I am banned than so be it
That’s not the issue. It’s posting AI (which was immediately recognisable to all of us as AI) without a link or acknowledgement.
If you’d said “I asked a well known AI engine (my guess from the style is this was Gemini or Grok) to explain why the comment was insulting. This is what it told me. I agree”, then you probably wouldn’t have had an issue. Although as a matter of principle I don’t think we should post AI output unless the subject matter is AI or there’s an absolutely compelling reason to do so.
Far from me, an independence supporter, to offer help to unionists. However, instead of bemoaning the success of the SNP, why don’t you question why all the unionist parties in Scotland are such abject failures? Hint, constant negativity isn’t helping you. Not having alternative policies that are attractive to voters isn’t helping, either. Uninspiring leaders also aren’t helping. Your only hope of improvement is to offer inspiring leaders and policies. What about, for example, supporting devo-max? Where will your next leaders come from? Your existing supply of placemen and women? No wonder the SNP are still the most popular party in Scotland.
Or energy pricing, which now sees the SE of England’s interests diametrically opposed to those of Scotland.
I think this is so fundamental to the economy and household finances there is simply no way for a UK-wide party to win in Scotland. The only caveat is that thr SNP have failed to really push this home yet.
If common energy pricing is so diametrically opposed to Scotland's interest why do you think the Scottish government privately lobbied the UK government to keep it? Now they can say the opposite in public because it's good politics and they are not the ones making the decision.
The issue of offshore wind curtailment arises because the grid can't cope. The UK Grid is barely fit for purpose today and certainly not for the energy transformation. The business case wouldn't be there for Scottish offshore wind without the UK market and a grid upgrade. Equally there needs to bea grid upgrade under any energy mix. The cost of upgrades specifically for offshore wind probably only applies to Northern Scotland and can be seen as part of the costs of that technology. The English and southern Scottish upgrades would need to happen for other technologies. Once the grid is upgraded there is no need for differential pricing. At most zonal pricing makes sense as an interim measure
Nodal pricing (in a perfect world) would allow the market to determine where energy is generated, what transmission is built, and where it is consumed.
I have nothing against improving transmission if the market price means it makes sense to do. But if all the power is up here, it makes more sense to build your factory here too rather than shift that power hundreds of miles south. Or the inverse - if all the demand is in the south, why are we building yet more turbines in Scotland?
Just seems to me like a perfect example of where a market can be used to achieve an efficient outcome.
If you look at a map of prevalent winds, it correlates perfectly with the built and projected wind farms.
Bit like the solar farms and sunshine.
Yes. Nodal pricing would also take that into account.
The massive transmission costs of building a wind farm on Lewis would be offset by the fact that there’s loads of wind there. Whether there’s enough to justify it being built should be left to the market to decide.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as "Farage in braids" has been characterized by critics and commentators as a formulation that blends elements of racism, misogyny, and political disrespect, rather than fitting into a single categegory
Based on political commentary and public discourse surrounding the Conservative leadership, here is the breakdown of why this description is controversial:
Racialized Misogyny: The phrase is widely seen as offensive because it reduces a Black woman's political identity to her hair ("braids") while associating her with Nigel Farage, a figure often criticized by anti-racism groups.
"Blackface of White Supremacy" Analogy: Some political commentary has used extreme terms to describe this type of comparison, implying that it attempts to delegitimize a black woman's agency by suggesting she is merely a conduit for white male political ideology, which is a form of intersectional attack.
Political Delegitimization: The comment is intended to mock Badenoch's ideological stance by claiming she is merely a female, ethnically diverse version of a political rival, thus undermining her own political identity and leadership capabilities.
Misogynoir: Critics argue this language constitutes "misogynoir"—a specific blend of misogyny and racism directed at Black women—by using a stereotype-laden term ("braids") to attack her intellectual and political independence.
While it is a personal attack, the consensus among critics is that it is not merely political banter, but a slur that relies on stereotypes about race and gender to attack a politician's legitimacy.
That's generative AI output.
I asked the question as it was used on a comment and this was the AI output
Is anyone challenging it
Yes, AI produces nonsense and Vanilla thinks you’re bot.
I just find that unacceptable
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as Farage in braids in offensive
I have made my position clear and if you want to ban me than that is your right
Did you get upset when I called Andy Burnham as Liz Truss in a suit?
But the issue is you posting AI slop without accreditation.
As Richard Tyndall pointed out a few weeks ago AI slop ruins the site.
Long, self-indulgent post alert: I've joined the Greens.
I'm intend to start (gently) door knocking for them and trying to get involved in the development of their economic policy. If anyone can be bothered I'd welcome being challenged on the reasoning below. If not, please feel free to ignore.
- For my whole adult life politics has been the art of finding the least worst option to support, and currently I feel that is the Greens (despite their laughable economic policy). - Capitalism as a vehicle for economic development has been spectacularly successful but has increasingly been captured by interests that don't serve us well. As an example the monetisation of ever-wider aspects of life (I'm particularly thinking of the monetisation of our attention through our phones and the concomitant promotion of widespread narcissism) is, I think, creating externalities that we will be paying for for generations to come. - Therefore I am looking for a political project that attempts to address the structure of our economic system, rather than tinkering with tax rates and our generosity or otherwise to those at the wrong end of inequality. - This is tempered by a natural conservatism; for a long time I have felt that reforming our economic structures is much more likely to make things worse rather than better. However, unless the next couple of years surprise on the upside (and economically this seems very unlikely) I think the next election is going to be won by a non-establishment party and given a forced choice between the Greens and Reform the Greens are a clear choice for me. - Finally, I have a three year old and a six year old. As someone relatively wealthy but with a big mortgage I have quite a lot to lose personally from a green government. But I would gladly lose that to invest in a project that might make the UK a healthier place (in the broadest sense) for my kids to grow up in.
What I want to vote for economically: - A gradual experiment of enforced worker- and community-representation on the boards of private companies to counterbalance the short-termism of our current emphasis on shareholder value. - A gradual move from taxing productivity (e.g. wages) towards taxing non-productivity (principally a wealth tax on property) - A gradual implementation of a maximum ratio between the lowest paid and the highest paid in any institution. - A commitment to gradually reducing our national debt through a combination of tax rises and spending cuts so that we are less beholden to bond markets in the medium term.
Interesting post. That very last point will be challenging with The Greens.
Yes, agreed. I think it might be the thing that causes me to join, get involved, then leave.
There are some who are advising the Greens, such as James Meadway, who get the need to tame the bond markets. But the voices the pretend we can ignore them are probably stronger at the moment.
Thoughtful post fair enough. I totally don’t agree but I can appreciate the sentiments.
However: Drug legalisation? An asylum policy that we all know would be implemented by a Green Govt as effectively open borders? And whilst I can see your hopes vis a vis debt/deficit discipline, frankly I think it will be a cold day in Hell before most of the members ( or the leadership even !) understand the bond market and what it can do, and it will have long frozen over before they row in behind a sane plan to deal with it.
Far from me, an independence supporter, to offer help to unionists. However, instead of bemoaning the success of the SNP, why don’t you question why all the unionist parties in Scotland are such abject failures? Hint, constant negativity isn’t helping you. Not having alternative policies that are attractive to voters isn’t helping, either. Uninspiring leaders also aren’t helping. Your only hope of improvement is to offer inspiring leaders and policies. What about, for example, supporting devo-max? Where will your next leaders come from? Your existing supply of placemen and women? No wonder the SNP are still the most popular party in Scotland.
Or energy pricing, which now sees the SE of England’s interests diametrically opposed to those of Scotland.
I think this is so fundamental to the economy and household finances there is simply no way for a UK-wide party to win in Scotland. The only caveat is that thr SNP have failed to really push this home yet.
If common energy pricing is so diametrically opposed to Scotland's interest why do you think the Scottish government privately lobbied the UK government to keep it? Now they can say the opposite in public because it's good politics and they are not the ones making the decision.
The issue of offshore wind curtailment arises because the grid can't cope. The UK Grid is barely fit for purpose today and certainly not for the energy transformation. The business case wouldn't be there for Scottish offshore wind without the UK market and a grid upgrade. Equally there needs to bea grid upgrade under any energy mix. The cost of upgrades specifically for offshore wind probably only applies to Northern Scotland and can be seen as part of the costs of that technology. The English and southern Scottish upgrades would need to happen for other technologies. Once the grid is upgraded there is no need for differential pricing. At most zonal pricing makes sense as an interim measure
Nodal pricing (in a perfect world) would allow the market to determine where energy is generated, what transmission is built, and where it is consumed.
I have nothing against improving transmission if the market price means it makes sense to do. But if all the power is up here, it makes more sense to build your factory here too rather than shift that power hundreds of miles south. Or the inverse - if all the demand is in the south, why are we building yet more turbines in Scotland?
Just seems to me like a perfect example of where a market can be used to achieve an efficient outcome.
If you look at a map of prevalent winds, it correlates perfectly with the built and projected wind farms.
Bit like the solar farms and sunshine.
Obviously we should be a great beneficiary of wind power. Oddly though it seems not!
Tidal then surely - we are pretty much the best placed to benefit. Again it seems not.
It requires joined up thinking.
And realisation, that yes, One Thing won't cause a whole tide of industry to spring up like warriors from sown dragons teeth. But a number of changes over a period of time will tend to increase various outcomes.
And yes, initially, all the bits used by a factory building wind turbines will be imported. And it will *start* as a final assembly plant. Then, when you have enough business mass, some of the supply chain might move. Then some more.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as "Farage in braids" has been characterized by critics and commentators as a formulation that blends elements of racism, misogyny, and political disrespect, rather than fitting into a single categegory
Based on political commentary and public discourse surrounding the Conservative leadership, here is the breakdown of why this description is controversial:
Racialized Misogyny: The phrase is widely seen as offensive because it reduces a Black woman's political identity to her hair ("braids") while associating her with Nigel Farage, a figure often criticized by anti-racism groups.
"Blackface of White Supremacy" Analogy: Some political commentary has used extreme terms to describe this type of comparison, implying that it attempts to delegitimize a black woman's agency by suggesting she is merely a conduit for white male political ideology, which is a form of intersectional attack.
Political Delegitimization: The comment is intended to mock Badenoch's ideological stance by claiming she is merely a female, ethnically diverse version of a political rival, thus undermining her own political identity and leadership capabilities.
Misogynoir: Critics argue this language constitutes "misogynoir"—a specific blend of misogyny and racism directed at Black women—by using a stereotype-laden term ("braids") to attack her intellectual and political independence.
While it is a personal attack, the consensus among critics is that it is not merely political banter, but a slur that relies on stereotypes about race and gender to attack a politician's legitimacy.
That's generative AI output.
Big G
Thats desperation.
You need help.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as Farage in braids in offensive
I do not recile my position and if I am banned than so be it
That’s not the issue. It’s posting AI (which was immediately recognisable to all of us as AI) without a link or acknowledgement.
If you’d said “I asked a well known AI engine (my guess from the style is this was Gemini or Grok) to explain why the comment was insulting. This is what it told me. I agree”, then you probably wouldn’t have had an issue. Although as a matter of principle I don’t think we should post AI output unless the subject matter is AI or there’s an absolutely compelling reason to do so.
To be honest maybe I was naive but I did ask the question and AI generated the answer
The comment was offensive and yet I am being told after 12 years on this site I am a 'bot'
I hope I have provided some value though obviously I upset some which is the nature of politics
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as "Farage in braids" has been characterized by critics and commentators as a formulation that blends elements of racism, misogyny, and political disrespect, rather than fitting into a single categegory
Based on political commentary and public discourse surrounding the Conservative leadership, here is the breakdown of why this description is controversial:
Racialized Misogyny: The phrase is widely seen as offensive because it reduces a Black woman's political identity to her hair ("braids") while associating her with Nigel Farage, a figure often criticized by anti-racism groups.
"Blackface of White Supremacy" Analogy: Some political commentary has used extreme terms to describe this type of comparison, implying that it attempts to delegitimize a black woman's agency by suggesting she is merely a conduit for white male political ideology, which is a form of intersectional attack.
Political Delegitimization: The comment is intended to mock Badenoch's ideological stance by claiming she is merely a female, ethnically diverse version of a political rival, thus undermining her own political identity and leadership capabilities.
Misogynoir: Critics argue this language constitutes "misogynoir"—a specific blend of misogyny and racism directed at Black women—by using a stereotype-laden term ("braids") to attack her intellectual and political independence.
While it is a personal attack, the consensus among critics is that it is not merely political banter, but a slur that relies on stereotypes about race and gender to attack a politician's legitimacy.
That's generative AI output.
Big G
Thats desperation.
You need help.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as Farage in braids in offensive
I do not recile my position and if I am banned than so be it
That’s not the issue. It’s posting AI (which was immediately recognisable to all of us as AI) without a link or acknowledgement.
If you’d said “I asked a well known AI engine (my guess from the style is this was Gemini or Grok) to explain why the comment was insulting. This is what it told me. I agree”, then you probably wouldn’t have had an issue. Although as a matter of principle I don’t think we should post AI output unless the subject matter is AI or there’s an absolutely compelling reason to do so.
To be honest maybe I was naive but I did ask the question and AI generated the answer
The comment was offensive and yet I am being told after 12 years on this site I am a 'bot'
I hope I have provided some value though obviously I upset some which is the nature of politics
No person thinks you are a bot. The automated spam filter does which creates work for the mods.
EXCL: ITV News understands that following today's Southport Inquiry, Merseyside Police are continuing to review whether or not to reinvestigate Axel Rudakubana's parents.
The report is damning of his parents' failure to fully cooperate with agencies over his behaviour.
Far from me, an independence supporter, to offer help to unionists. However, instead of bemoaning the success of the SNP, why don’t you question why all the unionist parties in Scotland are such abject failures? Hint, constant negativity isn’t helping you. Not having alternative policies that are attractive to voters isn’t helping, either. Uninspiring leaders also aren’t helping. Your only hope of improvement is to offer inspiring leaders and policies. What about, for example, supporting devo-max? Where will your next leaders come from? Your existing supply of placemen and women? No wonder the SNP are still the most popular party in Scotland.
Or energy pricing, which now sees the SE of England’s interests diametrically opposed to those of Scotland.
I think this is so fundamental to the economy and household finances there is simply no way for a UK-wide party to win in Scotland. The only caveat is that thr SNP have failed to really push this home yet.
If common energy pricing is so diametrically opposed to Scotland's interest why do you think the Scottish government privately lobbied the UK government to keep it? Now they can say the opposite in public because it's good politics and they are not the ones making the decision.
The issue of offshore wind curtailment arises because the grid can't cope. The UK Grid is barely fit for purpose today and certainly not for the energy transformation. The business case wouldn't be there for Scottish offshore wind without the UK market and a grid upgrade. Equally there needs to bea grid upgrade under any energy mix. The cost of upgrades specifically for offshore wind probably only applies to Northern Scotland and can be seen as part of the costs of that technology. The English and southern Scottish upgrades would need to happen for other technologies. Once the grid is upgraded there is no need for differential pricing. At most zonal pricing makes sense as an interim measure
Nodal pricing (in a perfect world) would allow the market to determine where energy is generated, what transmission is built, and where it is consumed.
I have nothing against improving transmission if the market price means it makes sense to do. But if all the power is up here, it makes more sense to build your factory here too rather than shift that power hundreds of miles south. Or the inverse - if all the demand is in the south, why are we building yet more turbines in Scotland?
Just seems to me like a perfect example of where a market can be used to achieve an efficient outcome.
If you look at a map of prevalent winds, it correlates perfectly with the built and projected wind farms.
Bit like the solar farms and sunshine.
Obviously we should be a great beneficiary of wind power. Oddly though it seems not!
Tidal then surely - we are pretty much the best placed to benefit. Again it seems not.
It requires joined up thinking.
And realisation, that yes, One Thing won't cause a whole tide of industry to spring up like warriors from sown dragons teeth. But a number of changes over a period of time will tend to increase various outcomes.
And yes, initially, all the bits used by a factory building wind turbines will be imported. And it will *start* as a final assembly plant. Then, when you have enough business mass, some of the supply chain might move. Then some more.
Factory, factory! (A very good line from Dougal and the Blue Cat).
If you were considering building a factory then the chances of you having the UK on the list would be slim.
That has to change - the British people need to recognise that they have been humbled and cowed into submission by the US. A national knuckling-down is needed.
EXCL: ITV News understands that following today's Southport Inquiry, Merseyside Police are continuing to review whether or not to reinvestigate Axel Rudakubana's parents.
The report is damning of his parents' failure to fully cooperate with agencies over his behaviour.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as "Farage in braids" has been characterized by critics and commentators as a formulation that blends elements of racism, misogyny, and political disrespect, rather than fitting into a single categegory
Based on political commentary and public discourse surrounding the Conservative leadership, here is the breakdown of why this description is controversial:
Racialized Misogyny: The phrase is widely seen as offensive because it reduces a Black woman's political identity to her hair ("braids") while associating her with Nigel Farage, a figure often criticized by anti-racism groups.
"Blackface of White Supremacy" Analogy: Some political commentary has used extreme terms to describe this type of comparison, implying that it attempts to delegitimize a black woman's agency by suggesting she is merely a conduit for white male political ideology, which is a form of intersectional attack.
Political Delegitimization: The comment is intended to mock Badenoch's ideological stance by claiming she is merely a female, ethnically diverse version of a political rival, thus undermining her own political identity and leadership capabilities.
Misogynoir: Critics argue this language constitutes "misogynoir"—a specific blend of misogyny and racism directed at Black women—by using a stereotype-laden term ("braids") to attack her intellectual and political independence.
While it is a personal attack, the consensus among critics is that it is not merely political banter, but a slur that relies on stereotypes about race and gender to attack a politician's legitimacy.
That's generative AI output.
I asked the question as it was used on a comment and this was the AI output
Is anyone challenging it
Yes, AI produces nonsense and Vanilla thinks you’re bot.
I just find that unacceptable
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as Farage in braids in offensive
I have made my position clear and if you want to ban me than that is your right
Did you get upset when I called Andy Burnham as Liz Truss in a suit?
But the issue is you posting AI slop without accreditation.
As Richard Tyndall pointed out a few weeks ago AI slop ruins the site.
I am sorry if that is the case and I should have explained it but the comment was offensive to me
EXCL: ITV News understands that following today's Southport Inquiry, Merseyside Police are continuing to review whether or not to reinvestigate Axel Rudakubana's parents.
The report is damning of his parents' failure to fully cooperate with agencies over his behaviour.
Far from me, an independence supporter, to offer help to unionists. However, instead of bemoaning the success of the SNP, why don’t you question why all the unionist parties in Scotland are such abject failures? Hint, constant negativity isn’t helping you. Not having alternative policies that are attractive to voters isn’t helping, either. Uninspiring leaders also aren’t helping. Your only hope of improvement is to offer inspiring leaders and policies. What about, for example, supporting devo-max? Where will your next leaders come from? Your existing supply of placemen and women? No wonder the SNP are still the most popular party in Scotland.
Or energy pricing, which now sees the SE of England’s interests diametrically opposed to those of Scotland.
I think this is so fundamental to the economy and household finances there is simply no way for a UK-wide party to win in Scotland. The only caveat is that thr SNP have failed to really push this home yet.
If common energy pricing is so diametrically opposed to Scotland's interest why do you think the Scottish government privately lobbied the UK government to keep it? Now they can say the opposite in public because it's good politics and they are not the ones making the decision.
The issue of offshore wind curtailment arises because the grid can't cope. The UK Grid is barely fit for purpose today and certainly not for the energy transformation. The business case wouldn't be there for Scottish offshore wind without the UK market and a grid upgrade. Equally there needs to bea grid upgrade under any energy mix. The cost of upgrades specifically for offshore wind probably only applies to Northern Scotland and can be seen as part of the costs of that technology. The English and southern Scottish upgrades would need to happen for other technologies. Once the grid is upgraded there is no need for differential pricing. At most zonal pricing makes sense as an interim measure
Nodal pricing (in a perfect world) would allow the market to determine where energy is generated, what transmission is built, and where it is consumed.
I have nothing against improving transmission if the market price means it makes sense to do. But if all the power is up here, it makes more sense to build your factory here too rather than shift that power hundreds of miles south. Or the inverse - if all the demand is in the south, why are we building yet more turbines in Scotland?
Just seems to me like a perfect example of where a market can be used to achieve an efficient outcome.
If you look at a map of prevalent winds, it correlates perfectly with the built and projected wind farms.
Bit like the solar farms and sunshine.
Obviously we should be a great beneficiary of wind power. Oddly though it seems not!
Tidal then surely - we are pretty much the best placed to benefit. Again it seems not.
It requires joined up thinking.
And realisation, that yes, One Thing won't cause a whole tide of industry to spring up like warriors from sown dragons teeth. But a number of changes over a period of time will tend to increase various outcomes.
And yes, initially, all the bits used by a factory building wind turbines will be imported. And it will *start* as a final assembly plant. Then, when you have enough business mass, some of the supply chain might move. Then some more.
Factory, factory! (A very good line from Dougal and the Blue Cat).
If you were considering building a factory then the chances of you having the UK on the list would be slim.
That has to change - the British people need to recognise that they have been humbled and cowed into submission by the US. A national knuckling-down is needed.
The problem isn't the US. If nothing else, we aren't buying our wind turbines from them.
It's us. If we want to make it impossible to build things then we won't have things. If we want to have expensive industrial 'leech, then consumption of industrial 'leech will be low.
Far from me, an independence supporter, to offer help to unionists. However, instead of bemoaning the success of the SNP, why don’t you question why all the unionist parties in Scotland are such abject failures? Hint, constant negativity isn’t helping you. Not having alternative policies that are attractive to voters isn’t helping, either. Uninspiring leaders also aren’t helping. Your only hope of improvement is to offer inspiring leaders and policies. What about, for example, supporting devo-max? Where will your next leaders come from? Your existing supply of placemen and women? No wonder the SNP are still the most popular party in Scotland.
Or energy pricing, which now sees the SE of England’s interests diametrically opposed to those of Scotland.
I think this is so fundamental to the economy and household finances there is simply no way for a UK-wide party to win in Scotland. The only caveat is that thr SNP have failed to really push this home yet.
If common energy pricing is so diametrically opposed to Scotland's interest why do you think the Scottish government privately lobbied the UK government to keep it? Now they can say the opposite in public because it's good politics and they are not the ones making the decision.
The issue of offshore wind curtailment arises because the grid can't cope. The UK Grid is barely fit for purpose today and certainly not for the energy transformation. The business case wouldn't be there for Scottish offshore wind without the UK market and a grid upgrade. Equally there needs to bea grid upgrade under any energy mix. The cost of upgrades specifically for offshore wind probably only applies to Northern Scotland and can be seen as part of the costs of that technology. The English and southern Scottish upgrades would need to happen for other technologies. Once the grid is upgraded there is no need for differential pricing. At most zonal pricing makes sense as an interim measure
Nodal pricing (in a perfect world) would allow the market to determine where energy is generated, what transmission is built, and where it is consumed.
I have nothing against improving transmission if the market price means it makes sense to do. But if all the power is up here, it makes more sense to build your factory here too rather than shift that power hundreds of miles south. Or the inverse - if all the demand is in the south, why are we building yet more turbines in Scotland?
Just seems to me like a perfect example of where a market can be used to achieve an efficient outcome.
If you look at a map of prevalent winds, it correlates perfectly with the built and projected wind farms.
Bit like the solar farms and sunshine.
Obviously we should be a great beneficiary of wind power. Oddly though it seems not!
Tidal then surely - we are pretty much the best placed to benefit. Again it seems not.
It requires joined up thinking.
And realisation, that yes, One Thing won't cause a whole tide of industry to spring up like warriors from sown dragons teeth. But a number of changes over a period of time will tend to increase various outcomes.
And yes, initially, all the bits used by a factory building wind turbines will be imported. And it will *start* as a final assembly plant. Then, when you have enough business mass, some of the supply chain might move. Then some more.
Factory, factory! (A very good line from Dougal and the Blue Cat).
If you were considering building a factory then the chances of you having the UK on the list would be slim.
That has to change - the British people need to recognise that they have been humbled and cowed into submission by the US. A national knuckling-down is needed.
The problem isn't the US. If nothing else, we aren't buying our wind turbines from them.
It's us. If we want to make it impossible to build things then we won't have things. If we want to have expensive industrial 'leech, then consumption of industrial 'leech will be low.
It's about choices.
The historical problem is and has been the US. And now it's China.
Crypto has been a way for dodgy people to receive money from others for over a decade
Really, news to me. Cheers 👍
Crypto is a bit like timeshares. The basic concept isn't a problem. It's just that 99.99999% of the people involved are crooks/scammers.
I’d not touch it with a barge pole.
We’ve got friends who think they’ll make a fortune on XRP
I’ll stick to my portfolio.
Ultimately, crypto is not a productive asset. It doesn't generate any kind of income. So it is unlike property, or shares, or bonds.
In fact, as there needs to be 'work' done via mining to maintain the network, you could argue that it is the opposite of a productive asset. In the case of Bitcoin, there is $12bn of newly mined Bitcoin every year, mostly wasted spent on power generation. Simplistically, you need $12bn more buyers than sellers every year, just to offset the impact of the cost of electricity generation on the network.
As mining new Bitcoins has become so expensive, why do people do it? Wouldn’t it make more sense to stop mining?
EXCL: ITV News understands that following today's Southport Inquiry, Merseyside Police are continuing to review whether or not to reinvestigate Axel Rudakubana's parents.
The report is damning of his parents' failure to fully cooperate with agencies over his behaviour.
I can see the point, but it's a bit like kicking someone when they're down. The Rudakubana's must be living in hell.
Its tricky. Ultimately one person and one person alone was responsible for this. Of course there were multiple events that could have prevented it. And it does seem that the parents have not done enough, but arguably for understandable reasons. But many others and some very disconnected systems have also failed.
We often see social services getting blamed for not doing enough when parents murder their kids. And while there are usually things that have gone wrong, again, at heart the people responsible are the murderers.
Far from me, an independence supporter, to offer help to unionists. However, instead of bemoaning the success of the SNP, why don’t you question why all the unionist parties in Scotland are such abject failures? Hint, constant negativity isn’t helping you. Not having alternative policies that are attractive to voters isn’t helping, either. Uninspiring leaders also aren’t helping. Your only hope of improvement is to offer inspiring leaders and policies. What about, for example, supporting devo-max? Where will your next leaders come from? Your existing supply of placemen and women? No wonder the SNP are still the most popular party in Scotland.
Or energy pricing, which now sees the SE of England’s interests diametrically opposed to those of Scotland.
I think this is so fundamental to the economy and household finances there is simply no way for a UK-wide party to win in Scotland. The only caveat is that thr SNP have failed to really push this home yet.
If common energy pricing is so diametrically opposed to Scotland's interest why do you think the Scottish government privately lobbied the UK government to keep it? Now they can say the opposite in public because it's good politics and they are not the ones making the decision.
The issue of offshore wind curtailment arises because the grid can't cope. The UK Grid is barely fit for purpose today and certainly not for the energy transformation. The business case wouldn't be there for Scottish offshore wind without the UK market and a grid upgrade. Equally there needs to bea grid upgrade under any energy mix. The cost of upgrades specifically for offshore wind probably only applies to Northern Scotland and can be seen as part of the costs of that technology. The English and southern Scottish upgrades would need to happen for other technologies. Once the grid is upgraded there is no need for differential pricing. At most zonal pricing makes sense as an interim measure
Nodal pricing (in a perfect world) would allow the market to determine where energy is generated, what transmission is built, and where it is consumed.
I have nothing against improving transmission if the market price means it makes sense to do. But if all the power is up here, it makes more sense to build your factory here too rather than shift that power hundreds of miles south. Or the inverse - if all the demand is in the south, why are we building yet more turbines in Scotland?
Just seems to me like a perfect example of where a market can be used to achieve an efficient outcome.
If you look at a map of prevalent winds, it correlates perfectly with the built and projected wind farms.
Bit like the solar farms and sunshine.
Obviously we should be a great beneficiary of wind power. Oddly though it seems not!
Tidal then surely - we are pretty much the best placed to benefit. Again it seems not.
It requires joined up thinking.
And realisation, that yes, One Thing won't cause a whole tide of industry to spring up like warriors from sown dragons teeth. But a number of changes over a period of time will tend to increase various outcomes.
And yes, initially, all the bits used by a factory building wind turbines will be imported. And it will *start* as a final assembly plant. Then, when you have enough business mass, some of the supply chain might move. Then some more.
Factory, factory! (A very good line from Dougal and the Blue Cat).
If you were considering building a factory then the chances of you having the UK on the list would be slim.
That has to change - the British people need to recognise that they have been humbled and cowed into submission by the US. A national knuckling-down is needed.
The problem isn't the US. If nothing else, we aren't buying our wind turbines from them.
It's us. If we want to make it impossible to build things then we won't have things. If we want to have expensive industrial 'leech, then consumption of industrial 'leech will be low.
It's about choices.
The historical problem is and has been the US. And now it's China.
It's neither. If we make it more expensive to do things here, then they will be done elsewhere.
Crypto has been a way for dodgy people to receive money from others for over a decade
Really, news to me. Cheers 👍
Crypto is a bit like timeshares. The basic concept isn't a problem. It's just that 99.99999% of the people involved are crooks/scammers.
I’d not touch it with a barge pole.
We’ve got friends who think they’ll make a fortune on XRP
I’ll stick to my portfolio.
Ultimately, crypto is not a productive asset. It doesn't generate any kind of income. So it is unlike property, or shares, or bonds.
In fact, as there needs to be 'work' done via mining to maintain the network, you could argue that it is the opposite of a productive asset. In the case of Bitcoin, there is $12bn of newly mined Bitcoin every year, mostly wasted spent on power generation. Simplistically, you need $12bn more buyers than sellers every year, just to offset the impact of the cost of electricity generation on the network.
As mining new Bitcoins has become so expensive, why do people do it? Wouldn’t it make more sense to stop mining?
The key to Bitcoin mining, is not to be the person paying the electricity bill!
Crypto has been a way for dodgy people to receive money from others for over a decade
Really, news to me. Cheers 👍
Crypto is a bit like timeshares. The basic concept isn't a problem. It's just that 99.99999% of the people involved are crooks/scammers.
I’d not touch it with a barge pole.
We’ve got friends who think they’ll make a fortune on XRP
I’ll stick to my portfolio.
Ultimately, crypto is not a productive asset. It doesn't generate any kind of income. So it is unlike property, or shares, or bonds.
In fact, as there needs to be 'work' done via mining to maintain the network, you could argue that it is the opposite of a productive asset. In the case of Bitcoin, there is $12bn of newly mined Bitcoin every year, mostly wasted spent on power generation. Simplistically, you need $12bn more buyers than sellers every year, just to offset the impact of the cost of electricity generation on the network.
As mining new Bitcoins has become so expensive, why do people do it? Wouldn’t it make more sense to stop mining?
The key to Bitcoin mining, is not to be the person paying the electricity bill!
Or to use the heat generated for space heating - see the greenhouses in the Netherlands heated by Bitcoin servers.
EXCL: ITV News understands that following today's Southport Inquiry, Merseyside Police are continuing to review whether or not to reinvestigate Axel Rudakubana's parents.
The report is damning of his parents' failure to fully cooperate with agencies over his behaviour.
I can see the point, but it's a bit like kicking someone when they're down. The Rudakubana's must be living in hell.
On the other hand kicking them when they are down may in the longer term encourage another set of parents to do the right them for their community rather than their (wayward) child
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as "Farage in braids" has been characterized by critics and commentators as a formulation that blends elements of racism, misogyny, and political disrespect, rather than fitting into a single categegory
Based on political commentary and public discourse surrounding the Conservative leadership, here is the breakdown of why this description is controversial:
Racialized Misogyny: The phrase is widely seen as offensive because it reduces a Black woman's political identity to her hair ("braids") while associating her with Nigel Farage, a figure often criticized by anti-racism groups.
"Blackface of White Supremacy" Analogy: Some political commentary has used extreme terms to describe this type of comparison, implying that it attempts to delegitimize a black woman's agency by suggesting she is merely a conduit for white male political ideology, which is a form of intersectional attack.
Political Delegitimization: The comment is intended to mock Badenoch's ideological stance by claiming she is merely a female, ethnically diverse version of a political rival, thus undermining her own political identity and leadership capabilities.
Misogynoir: Critics argue this language constitutes "misogynoir"—a specific blend of misogyny and racism directed at Black women—by using a stereotype-laden term ("braids") to attack her intellectual and political independence.
While it is a personal attack, the consensus among critics is that it is not merely political banter, but a slur that relies on stereotypes about race and gender to attack a politician's legitimacy.
That's generative AI output.
I asked the question as it was used on a comment and this was the AI output
Is anyone challenging it
Yes, AI produces nonsense and Vanilla thinks you’re bot.
I just find that unacceptable
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as Farage in braids in offensive
I have made my position clear and if you want to ban me than that is your right
You're fine to challenge, same as everyone else.
But using AI to generate a challenge is meaningless lazy bibble. Poor show, see me after class.
The gentlemanly way to resolve this is a "weapons for two, breakfast for one" duel.
Far from me, an independence supporter, to offer help to unionists. However, instead of bemoaning the success of the SNP, why don’t you question why all the unionist parties in Scotland are such abject failures? Hint, constant negativity isn’t helping you. Not having alternative policies that are attractive to voters isn’t helping, either. Uninspiring leaders also aren’t helping. Your only hope of improvement is to offer inspiring leaders and policies. What about, for example, supporting devo-max? Where will your next leaders come from? Your existing supply of placemen and women? No wonder the SNP are still the most popular party in Scotland.
Or energy pricing, which now sees the SE of England’s interests diametrically opposed to those of Scotland.
I think this is so fundamental to the economy and household finances there is simply no way for a UK-wide party to win in Scotland. The only caveat is that thr SNP have failed to really push this home yet.
If common energy pricing is so diametrically opposed to Scotland's interest why do you think the Scottish government privately lobbied the UK government to keep it? Now they can say the opposite in public because it's good politics and they are not the ones making the decision.
The issue of offshore wind curtailment arises because the grid can't cope. The UK Grid is barely fit for purpose today and certainly not for the energy transformation. The business case wouldn't be there for Scottish offshore wind without the UK market and a grid upgrade. Equally there needs to bea grid upgrade under any energy mix. The cost of upgrades specifically for offshore wind probably only applies to Northern Scotland and can be seen as part of the costs of that technology. The English and southern Scottish upgrades would need to happen for other technologies. Once the grid is upgraded there is no need for differential pricing. At most zonal pricing makes sense as an interim measure
Nodal pricing (in a perfect world) would allow the market to determine where energy is generated, what transmission is built, and where it is consumed.
I have nothing against improving transmission if the market price means it makes sense to do. But if all the power is up here, it makes more sense to build your factory here too rather than shift that power hundreds of miles south. Or the inverse - if all the demand is in the south, why are we building yet more turbines in Scotland?
Just seems to me like a perfect example of where a market can be used to achieve an efficient outcome.
If you look at a map of prevalent winds, it correlates perfectly with the built and projected wind farms.
Bit like the solar farms and sunshine.
Obviously we should be a great beneficiary of wind power. Oddly though it seems not!
Tidal then surely - we are pretty much the best placed to benefit. Again it seems not.
It requires joined up thinking.
And realisation, that yes, One Thing won't cause a whole tide of industry to spring up like warriors from sown dragons teeth. But a number of changes over a period of time will tend to increase various outcomes.
And yes, initially, all the bits used by a factory building wind turbines will be imported. And it will *start* as a final assembly plant. Then, when you have enough business mass, some of the supply chain might move. Then some more.
Factory, factory! (A very good line from Dougal and the Blue Cat).
If you were considering building a factory then the chances of you having the UK on the list would be slim.
That has to change - the British people need to recognise that they have been humbled and cowed into submission by the US. A national knuckling-down is needed.
The problem isn't the US. If nothing else, we aren't buying our wind turbines from them.
It's us. If we want to make it impossible to build things then we won't have things. If we want to have expensive industrial 'leech, then consumption of industrial 'leech will be low.
It's about choices.
The historical problem is and has been the US. And now it's China.
It's neither. If we make it more expensive to do things here, then they will be done elsewhere.
I'm fairly sure that was precisely the point I was making.
I did have in mind also the IP that we have needlessly abandoned to the interests of others.
Dyson is an excellent example of things working, and yet that company has failed to really fire on all cylinders. I know this because I hired one of their brightest and best.
Chinese Defence Minister Admiral Dong Jun with a message for Trump: “Our ships are moving in and out of the waters of the Strait of Hormuz. We have trade and energy agreements with Iran. We will respect and honour those agreements and expect others not to interfere in our affairs.
“Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz and it is open for us.”
That’s a pretty firm line drawn. Can’t see the Chinese backing down.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as "Farage in braids" has been characterized by critics and commentators as a formulation that blends elements of racism, misogyny, and political disrespect, rather than fitting into a single categegory
Based on political commentary and public discourse surrounding the Conservative leadership, here is the breakdown of why this description is controversial:
Racialized Misogyny: The phrase is widely seen as offensive because it reduces a Black woman's political identity to her hair ("braids") while associating her with Nigel Farage, a figure often criticized by anti-racism groups.
"Blackface of White Supremacy" Analogy: Some political commentary has used extreme terms to describe this type of comparison, implying that it attempts to delegitimize a black woman's agency by suggesting she is merely a conduit for white male political ideology, which is a form of intersectional attack.
Political Delegitimization: The comment is intended to mock Badenoch's ideological stance by claiming she is merely a female, ethnically diverse version of a political rival, thus undermining her own political identity and leadership capabilities.
Misogynoir: Critics argue this language constitutes "misogynoir"—a specific blend of misogyny and racism directed at Black women—by using a stereotype-laden term ("braids") to attack her intellectual and political independence.
While it is a personal attack, the consensus among critics is that it is not merely political banter, but a slur that relies on stereotypes about race and gender to attack a politician's legitimacy.
That's generative AI output.
I asked the question as it was used on a comment and this was the AI output
Is anyone challenging it
Yes, AI produces nonsense and Vanilla thinks you’re bot.
I just find that unacceptable
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as Farage in braids in offensive
I have made my position clear and if you want to ban me than that is your right
You're fine to challenge, same as everyone else.
But using AI to generate a challenge is meaningless lazy bibble. Poor show, see me after class.
The gentlemanly way to resolve this is a "weapons for two, breakfast for one" duel.
The way to resolve it is the apology I have given to @TSE as I misunderstood the use of A1, but also not to compare Kemi Badenoch to Farage with braids
Far from me, an independence supporter, to offer help to unionists. However, instead of bemoaning the success of the SNP, why don’t you question why all the unionist parties in Scotland are such abject failures? Hint, constant negativity isn’t helping you. Not having alternative policies that are attractive to voters isn’t helping, either. Uninspiring leaders also aren’t helping. Your only hope of improvement is to offer inspiring leaders and policies. What about, for example, supporting devo-max? Where will your next leaders come from? Your existing supply of placemen and women? No wonder the SNP are still the most popular party in Scotland.
Or energy pricing, which now sees the SE of England’s interests diametrically opposed to those of Scotland.
I think this is so fundamental to the economy and household finances there is simply no way for a UK-wide party to win in Scotland. The only caveat is that thr SNP have failed to really push this home yet.
If common energy pricing is so diametrically opposed to Scotland's interest why do you think the Scottish government privately lobbied the UK government to keep it? Now they can say the opposite in public because it's good politics and they are not the ones making the decision.
The issue of offshore wind curtailment arises because the grid can't cope. The UK Grid is barely fit for purpose today and certainly not for the energy transformation. The business case wouldn't be there for Scottish offshore wind without the UK market and a grid upgrade. Equally there needs to bea grid upgrade under any energy mix. The cost of upgrades specifically for offshore wind probably only applies to Northern Scotland and can be seen as part of the costs of that technology. The English and southern Scottish upgrades would need to happen for other technologies. Once the grid is upgraded there is no need for differential pricing. At most zonal pricing makes sense as an interim measure
Nodal pricing (in a perfect world) would allow the market to determine where energy is generated, what transmission is built, and where it is consumed.
I have nothing against improving transmission if the market price means it makes sense to do. But if all the power is up here, it makes more sense to build your factory here too rather than shift that power hundreds of miles south. Or the inverse - if all the demand is in the south, why are we building yet more turbines in Scotland?
Just seems to me like a perfect example of where a market can be used to achieve an efficient outcome.
Nodal/zonal pricing seems to me to be a manifestation of the grid capacity problem rather than the solution to it.
You want the grid to be capable of carrying all likely required energy production for all likely demand. If you want wind power, including in the south of England, you need to capture it where the wind is. Same for hydro power, which mostly comes from Norway and lands in Northumberland. etc Equally the economic existence of Scottish offshore wind farms is predicated on having a market at the end of a transmission line. You want redundant capacity across the grid for energy security.
Doing this means offshore wind will rarely be curtailed because of a lack of grid capacity and zonal pricing becomes mostly irrelevant, I think. Fix the grid capacity problem, which you want to do anyway, and the problem goes away
EXCL: ITV News understands that following today's Southport Inquiry, Merseyside Police are continuing to review whether or not to reinvestigate Axel Rudakubana's parents.
The report is damning of his parents' failure to fully cooperate with agencies over his behaviour.
I can see the point, but it's a bit like kicking someone when they're down. The Rudakubana's must be living in hell.
On the other hand kicking them when they are down may in the longer term encourage another set of parents to do the right them for their community rather than their (wayward) child
It's not easy is it? And I can understand the parents of the three little girls, if they think the Rudakubana's should suffer further shame.
Long, self-indulgent post alert: I've joined the Greens.
I'm intend to start (gently) door knocking for them and trying to get involved in the development of their economic policy. If anyone can be bothered I'd welcome being challenged on the reasoning below. If not, please feel free to ignore.
- For my whole adult life politics has been the art of finding the least worst option to support, and currently I feel that is the Greens (despite their laughable economic policy). - Capitalism as a vehicle for economic development has been spectacularly successful but has increasingly been captured by interests that don't serve us well. As an example the monetisation of ever-wider aspects of life (I'm particularly thinking of the monetisation of our attention through our phones and the concomitant promotion of widespread narcissism) is, I think, creating externalities that we will be paying for for generations to come. - Therefore I am looking for a political project that attempts to address the structure of our economic system, rather than tinkering with tax rates and our generosity or otherwise to those at the wrong end of inequality. - This is tempered by a natural conservatism; for a long time I have felt that reforming our economic structures is much more likely to make things worse rather than better. However, unless the next couple of years surprise on the upside (and economically this seems very unlikely) I think the next election is going to be won by a non-establishment party and given a forced choice between the Greens and Reform the Greens are a clear choice for me. - Finally, I have a three year old and a six year old. As someone relatively wealthy but with a big mortgage I have quite a lot to lose personally from a green government. But I would gladly lose that to invest in a project that might make the UK a healthier place (in the broadest sense) for my kids to grow up in.
What I want to vote for economically: - A gradual experiment of enforced worker- and community-representation on the boards of private companies to counterbalance the short-termism of our current emphasis on shareholder value. - A gradual move from taxing productivity (e.g. wages) towards taxing non-productivity (principally a wealth tax on property) - A gradual implementation of a maximum ratio between the lowest paid and the highest paid in any institution. - A commitment to gradually reducing our national debt through a combination of tax rises and spending cuts so that we are less beholden to bond markets in the medium term.
Interesting post. That very last point will be challenging with The Greens.
Yes, agreed. I think it might be the thing that causes me to join, get involved, then leave.
There are some who are advising the Greens, such as James Meadway, who get the need to tame the bond markets. But the voices the pretend we can ignore them are probably stronger at the moment.
Thoughtful post fair enough. I totally don’t agree but I can appreciate the sentiments.
However: Drug legalisation? An asylum policy that we all know would be implemented by a Green Govt as effectively open borders? And whilst I can see your hopes vis a vis debt/deficit discipline, frankly I think it will be a cold day in Hell before most of the members ( or the leadership even !) understand the bond market and what it can do, and it will have long frozen over before they row in behind a sane plan to deal with it.
On drug legalisation: I feel it's a side issue.
On asylum: I think this is a very thorny problem that noone has an answer to. My own personal views are with the Greens; I don't see a way we have the economic, military or political power to sustain our borders whilst current levels of global inequality exist, and attempts to sustain such inequality will lead to increasingly authoritarian policies in UK. My preference would be for planned and gradual transfers of wealth to reduce global inequality, rather than large-scale migration. But that's probably a separate debate.
On your last point, I probably agree. If you like, consider my actions a final folorn stab of optimism before the inevitable acceptance that we are more f***ed than a foreign Stepmum accessed via a VPN. I will at least be attending to use my energies to make your Hell a little chillier.
Bad news for everyone betting on Leicester City to go down.
The Baggies should be relegated to League 2 if they cost punters money.
West Brom face points deduction as Championship relegation battle takes fresh twist
Exclusive: Albion charged for alleged breach of financial rules but are looking to delay any punishment to next season
West Bromwich Albion have been charged with an alleged breach of financial rules in a shock development for the Championship’s relegation battle.
Telegraph Sport understands West Brom have allegedly breached English Football League’s profit and sustainability rules for last season and are facing the threat of a points deduction.
Under English Football League guidelines, any sporting sanction from the previous season must be applied in the following campaign, which would represent a severe blow to Albion’s hopes of survival with four games left.
It is understood, however, that the Championship club are attempting to delay any punishment until the 2026-27 season.
West Brom are 20th in the table after seven matches unbeaten under caretaker manager James Morrison, two points above Oxford United, who occupy the final relegation place. Leicester were deducted six points in February for breaching financial rules, failing in an appeal to reduce the sanction last week.
Wait for season to end Baggies stay up by 3 points and goal difference and accept 3 point deduction.
Birmingham had a 9 point deduction under previous regime and took it "in season" but we were in top 10 at the time and never in any danger with the deduction.
WBA have sailed very close to the wind for a while.
I don't as a Blues fan take any positives from decent Clubs like Leicester or WBA being penalised as the fans suffer not the perpetrators.
Clubs like Coventry show there is a way back although Mark Robins deserves far more of the credit than lucky Frank in my opinion.
When the Chinese were running the Baggies the financial fair play rules were seldom unbreached. I said on here a season or two ago that the Baggiies would be the biggest club to date to go into administration and fall out of the EFL altogether.
They were sold and this is a legacy issue, but it is what it is.
How the f*** are Chelsea and Man City able to avoid pretty much any ffp sanction?
Crypto has been a way for dodgy people to receive money from others for over a decade
Really, news to me. Cheers 👍
Crypto is a bit like timeshares. The basic concept isn't a problem. It's just that 99.99999% of the people involved are crooks/scammers.
I’d not touch it with a barge pole.
We’ve got friends who think they’ll make a fortune on XRP
I’ll stick to my portfolio.
Ultimately, crypto is not a productive asset. It doesn't generate any kind of income. So it is unlike property, or shares, or bonds.
In fact, as there needs to be 'work' done via mining to maintain the network, you could argue that it is the opposite of a productive asset. In the case of Bitcoin, there is $12bn of newly mined Bitcoin every year, mostly wasted spent on power generation. Simplistically, you need $12bn more buyers than sellers every year, just to offset the impact of the cost of electricity generation on the network.
In a world where tech billionaires can and do make many billions each year that they will be seeking to invest and divesify is 12bn actually much at all?
It's a risky asset that is happy to do 80% drops every few years, and if there's one time to stay away from risky assets, it's right now. Also I remember Trump being on the news when he was campaigning for this presidency up on stage at a bitcoin convention giving his stand-up act about how they're all high-IQ people who should vote for him, which should set alarm bells ringing.
Bad news for everyone betting on Leicester City to go down.
The Baggies should be relegated to League 2 if they cost punters money.
West Brom face points deduction as Championship relegation battle takes fresh twist
Exclusive: Albion charged for alleged breach of financial rules but are looking to delay any punishment to next season
West Bromwich Albion have been charged with an alleged breach of financial rules in a shock development for the Championship’s relegation battle.
Telegraph Sport understands West Brom have allegedly breached English Football League’s profit and sustainability rules for last season and are facing the threat of a points deduction.
Under English Football League guidelines, any sporting sanction from the previous season must be applied in the following campaign, which would represent a severe blow to Albion’s hopes of survival with four games left.
It is understood, however, that the Championship club are attempting to delay any punishment until the 2026-27 season.
West Brom are 20th in the table after seven matches unbeaten under caretaker manager James Morrison, two points above Oxford United, who occupy the final relegation place. Leicester were deducted six points in February for breaching financial rules, failing in an appeal to reduce the sanction last week.
Wait for season to end Baggies stay up by 3 points and goal difference and accept 3 point deduction.
Birmingham had a 9 point deduction under previous regime and took it "in season" but we were in top 10 at the time and never in any danger with the deduction.
WBA have sailed very close to the wind for a while.
I don't as a Blues fan take any positives from decent Clubs like Leicester or WBA being penalised as the fans suffer not the perpetrators.
Clubs like Coventry show there is a way back although Mark Robins deserves far more of the credit than lucky Frank in my opinion.
When the Chinese were running the Baggies the financial fair play rules were seldom unbreached. I said on here a season or two ago that the Baggiies would be the biggest club to date to go into administration and fall out of the EFL altogether.
They were sold and this is a legacy issue, but it is what it is.
How the f*** are Chelsea and Man City able to avoid pretty much any ffp sanction?
"We asked participants where they thought Britain stood economically compared to our main competitors. It turns out voters are living in a dreamworld.
Nearly half of British voters think that we are as rich, or richer, than Switzerland. Over half think we are as rich or richer than Australia, Singapore, or Germany. And, incredibly, over half of us think Britain is as rich as, or richer, than the United States.
The truth of course is that we are poorer than all those countries – according to the IMF, we are 10 per cent poorer than Germany, 20 per cent poorer than Australia, about 40 per cent poorer than America or Singapore."
Is someone from the USA who has 2 weeks paid holiday not 5, who spends perhaps £10k per annum on healthcare that is free here, who gets little or no income when they are ill, and who on average will die 4 years earlier than other Western citizens really wealthier than a British citizen?
And that is leaving aside the distribution patterns of wealth.
I note that you havent consider the dystopian hell hole that is... Switzerland. Or Germany. Or Australia.
The problem remains what it has always been - inadequate levels of investment. Why we fail to invest as much as other countries is more of a mystery to me.
I think the main British issue is the people on our political Right have a weird, blind fetish about the USA .... even now as we watch it fall to pieces. So I comment on that.
No matter what happens, they will wreck the society. They will always live of past investment, and not support the future - so they can give a false impression to their supporters.
Just as they did for example with a highly successful policy such as Sure Start, or the initiative which cut out road deaths in half in a mere 9 years from 2000/1.
Even David Cameron - marketing himself as he did - did not give a damn, and just trampled it into the earth.
That's why in my view the Conservative Party - speaking as a former member - needs to die, and be replaced with something decent.
BiB - did road deaths double after that decision?
Here's the historical graph. They decided to stop trying, and progress stopped.
There's always a soft limit to how far casualty rates can be reduced without actually banning motor vehicles or significantly restricting their use, particularly in the UK where our rate is already very low.
Introducing 20mph limits all over the place is more or less performative; most accidents resulting in KSIs don't happen because someone is doing 30mph down a residential street, they happen on faster roads (particularly NSL roads) or because the driver is speeding. So reducing the limit buys almost no real decrease in casualties. But it lets the government say they're doing something.
Making a notable difference would require politically unpalatable decisions, like introducing age and power gated car licences, similar to the current motorcycle licence system. Make drivers do a mandatory competence check every few years. Ban vehicles with poor forward visibility, etc.
No government will do any of those, particularly give the experiment with age and power gates on bike licences is now acknowledged to have significantly reduce the number of people riding bikes, to the point where the DVSA are in the process of making it easier and cheaper for bikers to upgrade their licences.
I note that it is usually a moveable soft limit, based on many factors. In 1967 there were a lot of people opposed to breathalyzers; we turned that around. We are doing the same with mobile phone usage. Such is not difficult, but requires a little resolve, and application, over a period of time.
On the other aspects, I think you are mistaken on of all of them.
We already have decades of data that 20mph limits in residential areas are not just performative. Just in Wales in year one overall KSI were down by 1/4 to 1/3, and even insurance premiums fell. That argument is over - they will be throughout England in a decade or so, just depending on political will. It is also the case that very large numbers of collision happen soon after leavign, or shortly before returning to, home.
We already have age gated licenses - at 17. We already ban vehicles with poor forward visibility, and things that prevent good visibility - uncleared snow, for example, or too dark tints, or bonnet protrusions, or windscreen blocking camera placement.
We already restrict use of motor vehicles extensively. We have speed limits, you cannot take one into Meadow Hall, speed limits, keep off pavements, do not drive into schoolyard at breaktime or across Zebra crossings mowing people down, not if you are blind or drunk or have fits, and the rest. Use of motor vehicles is a restricted privilege, which is how it should be.
The current Road Safety Strategy, brought forward in January this year, will bring forward many of these measures, including compulsory eye tests for people over 70, reduced drink drive limits, and several thing around young drivers. Keir Starmer is a very timid politician, and as far as I can see the ones he has proposed are only those which already have widespread and evidence-based support. Where I have seen them in the Telegraph they have strong support below the line, which is remarkable for a Starmer policy.
It's an enormous missed opportunity, but at least he won't be sitting on his bottom, which is something. Safety will improve.
So where's the data? Somewhere there should be a spreadsheet with all the KSIs and an assessment of the contributory factors. You can then add up which factors contributed to the most deaths prioritise them for mitigation.
Speed a factor in 59% of fatalities, followed by behaviour. In 2024 25% of car occupant fatalities were not wearing a seatbelt, 39% of car occupant fatalities at night.
You could make a significant reduction in fatalities with a seatbelt campaign Speed reduction, again, driving behaviour....
Long, self-indulgent post alert: I've joined the Greens.
I'm intend to start (gently) door knocking for them and trying to get involved in the development of their economic policy. If anyone can be bothered I'd welcome being challenged on the reasoning below. If not, please feel free to ignore.
- For my whole adult life politics has been the art of finding the least worst option to support, and currently I feel that is the Greens (despite their laughable economic policy). - Capitalism as a vehicle for economic development has been spectacularly successful but has increasingly been captured by interests that don't serve us well. As an example the monetisation of ever-wider aspects of life (I'm particularly thinking of the monetisation of our attention through our phones and the concomitant promotion of widespread narcissism) is, I think, creating externalities that we will be paying for for generations to come. - Therefore I am looking for a political project that attempts to address the structure of our economic system, rather than tinkering with tax rates and our generosity or otherwise to those at the wrong end of inequality. - This is tempered by a natural conservatism; for a long time I have felt that reforming our economic structures is much more likely to make things worse rather than better. However, unless the next couple of years surprise on the upside (and economically this seems very unlikely) I think the next election is going to be won by a non-establishment party and given a forced choice between the Greens and Reform the Greens are a clear choice for me. - Finally, I have a three year old and a six year old. As someone relatively wealthy but with a big mortgage I have quite a lot to lose personally from a green government. But I would gladly lose that to invest in a project that might make the UK a healthier place (in the broadest sense) for my kids to grow up in.
What I want to vote for economically: - A gradual experiment of enforced worker- and community-representation on the boards of private companies to counterbalance the short-termism of our current emphasis on shareholder value. - A gradual move from taxing productivity (e.g. wages) towards taxing non-productivity (principally a wealth tax on property) - A gradual implementation of a maximum ratio between the lowest paid and the highest paid in any institution. - A commitment to gradually reducing our national debt through a combination of tax rises and spending cuts so that we are less beholden to bond markets in the medium term.
Interesting post. That very last point will be challenging with The Greens.
Yes, agreed. I think it might be the thing that causes me to join, get involved, then leave.
There are some who are advising the Greens, such as James Meadway, who get the need to tame the bond markets. But the voices the pretend we can ignore them are probably stronger at the moment.
Thoughtful post fair enough. I totally don’t agree but I can appreciate the sentiments.
However: Drug legalisation? An asylum policy that we all know would be implemented by a Green Govt as effectively open borders? And whilst I can see your hopes vis a vis debt/deficit discipline, frankly I think it will be a cold day in Hell before most of the members ( or the leadership even !) understand the bond market and what it can do, and it will have long frozen over before they row in behind a sane plan to deal with it.
On drug legalisation: I feel it's a side issue.
On asylum: I think this is a very thorny problem that noone has an answer to. My own personal views are with the Greens; I don't see a way we have the economic, military or political power to sustain our borders whilst current levels of global inequality exist, and attempts to sustain such inequality will lead to increasingly authoritarian policies in UK. My preference would be for planned and gradual transfers of wealth to reduce global inequality, rather than large-scale migration. But that's probably a separate debate.
On your last point, I probably agree. If you like, consider my actions a final folorn stab of optimism before the inevitable acceptance that we are more f***ed than a foreign Stepmum accessed via a VPN. I will at least be attending to use my energies to make your Hell a little chillier.
Well on drugs I suspect many won’t see it as a major major issue, true, but it’s going to be an tough sell.
On migration: if you are saying to the average Brit, - well you got to send your hard earned money abroad effectively as Danegeld to bribe people from turning up and demanding entry, well good luck with that pitch. Courageous is the best I can give that one.
I admire your realism/optimism on the finances but nothing I’ve ever heard from the Greens would lead me to believe they are ever going to go against every instinct they’ve got, and suddenly get all sensible Swiss banker with the money. It’s just not going to happen in my opinion.
Bad news for everyone betting on Leicester City to go down.
The Baggies should be relegated to League 2 if they cost punters money.
West Brom face points deduction as Championship relegation battle takes fresh twist
Exclusive: Albion charged for alleged breach of financial rules but are looking to delay any punishment to next season
West Bromwich Albion have been charged with an alleged breach of financial rules in a shock development for the Championship’s relegation battle.
Telegraph Sport understands West Brom have allegedly breached English Football League’s profit and sustainability rules for last season and are facing the threat of a points deduction.
Under English Football League guidelines, any sporting sanction from the previous season must be applied in the following campaign, which would represent a severe blow to Albion’s hopes of survival with four games left.
It is understood, however, that the Championship club are attempting to delay any punishment until the 2026-27 season.
West Brom are 20th in the table after seven matches unbeaten under caretaker manager James Morrison, two points above Oxford United, who occupy the final relegation place. Leicester were deducted six points in February for breaching financial rules, failing in an appeal to reduce the sanction last week.
Wait for season to end Baggies stay up by 3 points and goal difference and accept 3 point deduction.
Birmingham had a 9 point deduction under previous regime and took it "in season" but we were in top 10 at the time and never in any danger with the deduction.
WBA have sailed very close to the wind for a while.
I don't as a Blues fan take any positives from decent Clubs like Leicester or WBA being penalised as the fans suffer not the perpetrators.
Clubs like Coventry show there is a way back although Mark Robins deserves far more of the credit than lucky Frank in my opinion.
When the Chinese were running the Baggies the financial fair play rules were seldom unbreached. I said on here a season or two ago that the Baggiies would be the biggest club to date to go into administration and fall out of the EFL altogether.
They were sold and this is a legacy issue, but it is what it is.
How the f*** are Chelsea and Man City able to avoid pretty much any ffp sanction?
The Premier League has a shiny new alternative to points deductions, according to the people who write YouTube.
Long, self-indulgent post alert: I've joined the Greens.
I'm intend to start (gently) door knocking for them and trying to get involved in the development of their economic policy. If anyone can be bothered I'd welcome being challenged on the reasoning below. If not, please feel free to ignore.
- For my whole adult life politics has been the art of finding the least worst option to support, and currently I feel that is the Greens (despite their laughable economic policy). - Capitalism as a vehicle for economic development has been spectacularly successful but has increasingly been captured by interests that don't serve us well. As an example the monetisation of ever-wider aspects of life (I'm particularly thinking of the monetisation of our attention through our phones and the concomitant promotion of widespread narcissism) is, I think, creating externalities that we will be paying for for generations to come. - Therefore I am looking for a political project that attempts to address the structure of our economic system, rather than tinkering with tax rates and our generosity or otherwise to those at the wrong end of inequality. - This is tempered by a natural conservatism; for a long time I have felt that reforming our economic structures is much more likely to make things worse rather than better. However, unless the next couple of years surprise on the upside (and economically this seems very unlikely) I think the next election is going to be won by a non-establishment party and given a forced choice between the Greens and Reform the Greens are a clear choice for me. - Finally, I have a three year old and a six year old. As someone relatively wealthy but with a big mortgage I have quite a lot to lose personally from a green government. But I would gladly lose that to invest in a project that might make the UK a healthier place (in the broadest sense) for my kids to grow up in.
What I want to vote for economically: - A gradual experiment of enforced worker- and community-representation on the boards of private companies to counterbalance the short-termism of our current emphasis on shareholder value. - A gradual move from taxing productivity (e.g. wages) towards taxing non-productivity (principally a wealth tax on property) - A gradual implementation of a maximum ratio between the lowest paid and the highest paid in any institution. - A commitment to gradually reducing our national debt through a combination of tax rises and spending cuts so that we are less beholden to bond markets in the medium term.
Interesting post. That very last point will be challenging with The Greens.
Yes, agreed. I think it might be the thing that causes me to join, get involved, then leave.
There are some who are advising the Greens, such as James Meadway, who get the need to tame the bond markets. But the voices the pretend we can ignore them are probably stronger at the moment.
Thoughtful post fair enough. I totally don’t agree but I can appreciate the sentiments.
However: Drug legalisation? An asylum policy that we all know would be implemented by a Green Govt as effectively open borders? And whilst I can see your hopes vis a vis debt/deficit discipline, frankly I think it will be a cold day in Hell before most of the members ( or the leadership even !) understand the bond market and what it can do, and it will have long frozen over before they row in behind a sane plan to deal with it.
On drug legalisation: I feel it's a side issue.
On asylum: I think this is a very thorny problem that noone has an answer to. My own personal views are with the Greens; I don't see a way we have the economic, military or political power to sustain our borders whilst current levels of global inequality exist, and attempts to sustain such inequality will lead to increasingly authoritarian policies in UK. My preference would be for planned and gradual transfers of wealth to reduce global inequality, rather than large-scale migration. But that's probably a separate debate.
On your last point, I probably agree. If you like, consider my actions a final folorn stab of optimism before the inevitable acceptance that we are more f***ed than a foreign Stepmum accessed via a VPN. I will at least be attending to use my energies to make your Hell a little chillier.
Hasn't global inequality collapsed in the last 40 years as Asia has boomed?
If you go back to the mid-1980s, and Asia and Africa were both absolutely mired in poverty. Now, it is only Africa that is poor, while Asia has made some extraordinary strides. And even in Africa, trhere are some remarkable success stories.
Bad news for everyone betting on Leicester City to go down.
The Baggies should be relegated to League 2 if they cost punters money.
West Brom face points deduction as Championship relegation battle takes fresh twist
Exclusive: Albion charged for alleged breach of financial rules but are looking to delay any punishment to next season
West Bromwich Albion have been charged with an alleged breach of financial rules in a shock development for the Championship’s relegation battle.
Telegraph Sport understands West Brom have allegedly breached English Football League’s profit and sustainability rules for last season and are facing the threat of a points deduction.
Under English Football League guidelines, any sporting sanction from the previous season must be applied in the following campaign, which would represent a severe blow to Albion’s hopes of survival with four games left.
It is understood, however, that the Championship club are attempting to delay any punishment until the 2026-27 season.
West Brom are 20th in the table after seven matches unbeaten under caretaker manager James Morrison, two points above Oxford United, who occupy the final relegation place. Leicester were deducted six points in February for breaching financial rules, failing in an appeal to reduce the sanction last week.
Wait for season to end Baggies stay up by 3 points and goal difference and accept 3 point deduction.
Birmingham had a 9 point deduction under previous regime and took it "in season" but we were in top 10 at the time and never in any danger with the deduction.
WBA have sailed very close to the wind for a while.
I don't as a Blues fan take any positives from decent Clubs like Leicester or WBA being penalised as the fans suffer not the perpetrators.
Clubs like Coventry show there is a way back although Mark Robins deserves far more of the credit than lucky Frank in my opinion.
When the Chinese were running the Baggies the financial fair play rules were seldom unbreached. I said on here a season or two ago that the Baggiies would be the biggest club to date to go into administration and fall out of the EFL altogether.
They were sold and this is a legacy issue, but it is what it is.
How the f*** are Chelsea and Man City able to avoid pretty much any ffp sanction?
The best lawyers. Too big to fail. Etc.
But both Chelsea and Man City only became big because of the dirty money.
Does anyone expect Starmer to resign on Friday 8th May if the results are catastrophic for Labour?
I don't
Nor do I expect the results to be catastrophic for Labour. Bad, yes, but I think they'll be worse for the Tories.
The weird thing being how unconcerned many Conservatives seem about that.
The Conservatives are better placed than Labour to capitalise on a potential collapse of the insurgent parties, even if they are struggling at the moment.
Long, self-indulgent post alert: I've joined the Greens.
I'm intend to start (gently) door knocking for them and trying to get involved in the development of their economic policy. If anyone can be bothered I'd welcome being challenged on the reasoning below. If not, please feel free to ignore.
- For my whole adult life politics has been the art of finding the least worst option to support, and currently I feel that is the Greens (despite their laughable economic policy). - Capitalism as a vehicle for economic development has been spectacularly successful but has increasingly been captured by interests that don't serve us well. As an example the monetisation of ever-wider aspects of life (I'm particularly thinking of the monetisation of our attention through our phones and the concomitant promotion of widespread narcissism) is, I think, creating externalities that we will be paying for for generations to come. - Therefore I am looking for a political project that attempts to address the structure of our economic system, rather than tinkering with tax rates and our generosity or otherwise to those at the wrong end of inequality. - This is tempered by a natural conservatism; for a long time I have felt that reforming our economic structures is much more likely to make things worse rather than better. However, unless the next couple of years surprise on the upside (and economically this seems very unlikely) I think the next election is going to be won by a non-establishment party and given a forced choice between the Greens and Reform the Greens are a clear choice for me. - Finally, I have a three year old and a six year old. As someone relatively wealthy but with a big mortgage I have quite a lot to lose personally from a green government. But I would gladly lose that to invest in a project that might make the UK a healthier place (in the broadest sense) for my kids to grow up in.
What I want to vote for economically: - A gradual experiment of enforced worker- and community-representation on the boards of private companies to counterbalance the short-termism of our current emphasis on shareholder value. - A gradual move from taxing productivity (e.g. wages) towards taxing non-productivity (principally a wealth tax on property) - A gradual implementation of a maximum ratio between the lowest paid and the highest paid in any institution. - A commitment to gradually reducing our national debt through a combination of tax rises and spending cuts so that we are less beholden to bond markets in the medium term.
I've decided to join the Greens after the local elections (not being held in my area), unless those elections prompt a major rethink. That's after over 50 years in Labour and 13 in Parliament as a Labour MP, Like you, I'm sceptical about aspects of Green policy but they have a positive, fairly consistent approach, which contrasts with the negative and erratic approach of the traditional parties. The parting has been amicable (I handed over the post of CLP Chair earlier this year) and I'm not interested in slagging anyone off, but a stronger Green voice in Parliament seems to me very desirable. Like you I expect any Green government to be unhelpful personally but better for the country and the future.
Just a quick question for those familiar with the minutiae of the American constitution - if the Pope had agreed to a debate with Donald Trump, and - as seems conceivable - had won it hands down, would that have initiated any mechanism by which the Pope could have become President?
I am not a Roman Catholic, but even if it resulted in a swap, I feel Pope Donald I would be a price well worth paying. And to be honest I think Pope is a job that Trump might find more congenial.
Trump isn't Roman Catholic nor celibate, so ineligable. Nor would Leo want to be head of state of a plurality Protestant nation
Comments
... and he doesn't
I hope @Nigel_Farage retracts this false statement.
I did not say Mr Tice paid the full amount. I said we don’t know what tax Mr Tice and his offshore trust paid.
And the “little bit more” is an invention.
https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/2043680420206653536?s=20
Not just drivers either. Pedestrians in their own bubble of phones or music wandering out into the road or being unable to hear cars and bikes. And we know this must happen given the number of phones snatched out of their owners' hands.
I have nothing against improving transmission if the market price means it makes sense to do. But if all the power is up here, it makes more sense to build your factory here too rather than shift that power hundreds of miles south. Or the inverse - if all the demand is in the south, why are we building yet more turbines in Scotland?
Just seems to me like a perfect example of where a market can be used to achieve an efficient outcome.
Thats desperation.
You need help.
Referring to Kemi Badenoch as Farage in braids in offensive
I have made my position clear and if you want to ban me than that is your right
I do not recile my position and if I am banned than so be it
I'm not talking about moving to Dubai or some other tax haven. Just one of half a dozen pleasant European liberal democracies with a better compromise between tax burden and social benefit.
I'm sure she "cannot recall" having a dodgy camper van on the drive.
Wait for season to end Baggies stay up by 3 points and goal difference and accept 3 point deduction.
Birmingham had a 9 point deduction under previous regime and took it "in season" but we were in top 10 at the time and never in any danger with the deduction.
WBA have sailed very close to the wind for a while.
I don't as a Blues fan take any positives from decent Clubs like Leicester or WBA being penalised as the fans suffer not the perpetrators.
Clubs like Coventry show there is a way back although Mark Robins deserves far more of the credit than lucky Frank in my opinion.
But in the short term I think Reform's economic incoherence would wreak just as much havoc, and in the medium to long term a continuation of our current model of capitalism will be just as destructive.
I hold out hope for my kids that there is a way to continue to make the UK an attractive place to invest for those like you who run a business whilst shifting away from a model that seeks to commodify everything.
I promised an important lurker if Matt Goodwin lost the by-election I would never use that photograph.
So that pic is no more.
Bit like the solar farms and sunshine.
And because I want the UK to be a better, greener, place where my grand-and great-grandchildren can have better lives.
Tidal then surely - we are pretty much the best placed to benefit. Again it seems not.
If you’d said “I asked a well known AI engine (my guess from the style is this was Gemini or Grok) to explain why the comment was insulting. This is what it told me. I agree”, then you probably wouldn’t have had an issue. Although as a matter of principle I don’t think we should post AI output unless the subject matter is AI or there’s an absolutely compelling reason to do so.
The massive transmission costs of building a wind farm on Lewis would be offset by the fact that there’s loads of wind there. Whether there’s enough to justify it being built should be left to the market to decide.
But the issue is you posting AI slop without accreditation.
As Richard Tyndall pointed out a few weeks ago AI slop ruins the site.
However: Drug legalisation? An asylum policy that we all know would be implemented by a Green Govt as effectively open borders? And whilst I can see your hopes vis a vis debt/deficit discipline, frankly I think it will be a cold day in Hell before most of the members ( or the leadership even !) understand the bond market and what it can do, and it will have long frozen over before they row in behind a sane plan to deal with it.
And realisation, that yes, One Thing won't cause a whole tide of industry to spring up like warriors from sown dragons teeth. But a number of changes over a period of time will tend to increase various outcomes.
And yes, initially, all the bits used by a factory building wind turbines will be imported. And it will *start* as a final assembly plant. Then, when you have enough business mass, some of the supply chain might move. Then some more.
The comment was offensive and yet I am being told after 12 years on this site I am a 'bot'
I hope I have provided some value though obviously I upset some which is the nature of politics
The report is damning of his parents' failure to fully cooperate with agencies over his behaviour.
https://x.com/paulbranditv/status/2043690101096452542?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
If you were considering building a factory then the chances of you having the UK on the list would be slim.
That has to change - the British people need to recognise that they have been humbled and cowed into submission by the US. A national knuckling-down is needed.
It's a bit bloody late.
Yours faithfully...
It's us. If we want to make it impossible to build things then we won't have things. If we want to have expensive industrial 'leech, then consumption of industrial 'leech will be low.
It's about choices.
One constituency seat flipped and more diaspora vote caused a loss of 1 seat on the national list .
There are currently two Fidesz seats who are leading by just 138 and 174 votes .
We often see social services getting blamed for not doing enough when parents murder their kids. And while there are usually things that have gone wrong, again, at heart the people responsible are the murderers.
But using AI to generate a challenge is meaningless lazy bibble. Poor show, see me after class.
The gentlemanly way to resolve this is a "weapons for two, breakfast for one" duel.
I did have in mind also the IP that we have needlessly abandoned to the interests of others.
Dyson is an excellent example of things working, and yet that company has failed to really fire on all cylinders. I know this because I hired one of their brightest and best.
@chadbourn.bsky.social
Chinese Defence Minister Admiral Dong Jun with a message for Trump: “Our ships are moving in and out of the waters of the Strait of Hormuz. We have trade and energy agreements with Iran. We will respect and honour those agreements and expect others not to interfere in our affairs.
“Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz and it is open for us.”
That’s a pretty firm line drawn. Can’t see the Chinese backing down.
https://bsky.app/profile/chadbourn.bsky.social/post/3mjf7tosbp223
https://bsky.app/profile/chadbourn.bsky.social/post/3mjf7pp2j4223
You want the grid to be capable of carrying all likely required energy production for all likely demand. If you want wind power, including in the south of England, you need to capture it where the wind is. Same for hydro power, which mostly comes from Norway and lands in Northumberland. etc Equally the economic existence of Scottish offshore wind farms is predicated on having a market at the end of a transmission line. You want redundant capacity across the grid for energy security.
Doing this means offshore wind will rarely be curtailed because of a lack of grid capacity and zonal pricing becomes mostly irrelevant, I think. Fix the grid capacity problem, which you want to do anyway, and the problem goes away
On asylum: I think this is a very thorny problem that noone has an answer to. My own personal views are with the Greens; I don't see a way we have the economic, military or political power to sustain our borders whilst current levels of global inequality exist, and attempts to sustain such inequality will lead to increasingly authoritarian policies in UK. My preference would be for planned and gradual transfers of wealth to reduce global inequality, rather than large-scale migration. But that's probably a separate debate.
On your last point, I probably agree. If you like, consider my actions a final folorn stab of optimism before the inevitable acceptance that we are more f***ed than a foreign Stepmum accessed via a VPN. I will at least be attending to use my energies to make your Hell a little chillier.
They were sold and this is a legacy issue, but it is what it is.
How the f*** are Chelsea and Man City able to avoid pretty much any ffp sanction?
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2024/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2024#factors-contributing-to-fatalities
Speed a factor in 59% of fatalities, followed by behaviour.
In 2024 25% of car occupant fatalities were not wearing a seatbelt, 39% of car occupant fatalities at night.
You could make a significant reduction in fatalities with a seatbelt campaign
Speed reduction, again, driving behaviour....
On migration: if you are saying to the average Brit, - well you got to send your hard earned money abroad effectively as Danegeld to bribe people from turning up and demanding entry, well good luck with that pitch. Courageous is the best I can give that one.
I admire your realism/optimism on the finances but nothing I’ve ever heard from the Greens would lead me to believe they are ever going to go against every instinct they’ve got, and suddenly get all sensible Swiss banker with the money. It’s just not going to happen in my opinion.
The Premier League’s NEW Financial Rules: SCR Explained
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lp8aJGebhNw
If you go back to the mid-1980s, and Asia and Africa were both absolutely mired in poverty. Now, it is only Africa that is poor, while Asia has made some extraordinary strides. And even in Africa, trhere are some remarkable success stories.
NEW THREAD
Yes it's Zerohedge but hardly surprising given how bad a hand Trump has and still doesn't realise https://x.com/zerohedge/status/2043729211672735774
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2043727453424685444
Thicker than I thought.