Trump really seems to have it in for Britain at the moment.
- The Falklands nonsense. - Threatening a massive tariff again over the digital services tax. - Claiming to speak more for Britain than Prince Harry after the Duke chided the US for not standing by their commitment to Ukraine made when Ukraine gave up it's nuclear weapons.
I do wish he'd piss off.
Ignore him. He will do what he does regardless.
Just pity the King who is going to have to listen to him while nodding for the next few days
Hopefully we'll rig him up with some sort of discreet earpiece so that he can listen to the racing or the snooker at the same time ?
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Indeed. If as reported there will be half normal aviation fuel availability, what limits should be in place now? Who will need to be protected from fuel prices that could increase two or three fold,and who will be left to cope as best they can? What measures need to be put in place to prevent potential famine in places that simply can't afford to bid for fertiliser? etc
I se Lufthansa have been thinking ahead and have cancelled 20,000 flights between now and October. We should maybe be looking at limiting internal flights where there is an alternative (even if less convenient) and prioritising lang haul where there really isn't an alternative. Diesel needs to be prioritised for public service vehicles (emergency etc ) and road haulage.
But what can we do about the lack of nitrogen fertiliser ?
Trump really seems to have it in for Britain at the moment.
- The Falklands nonsense. - Threatening a massive tariff again over the digital services tax. - Claiming to speak more for Britain than Prince Harry after the Duke chided the US for not standing by their commitment to Ukraine made when Ukraine gave up it's nuclear weapons.
I do wish he'd piss off.
I think the British tolerance for Trump is wearing very thin. Personally I wince every time I read the malevolent stupidity that emerges from the west wing each day. A treacherous criminal and a complete shit of a human being, and that just his good points. I am looking forward to the trials when this is all over- and for the sake of the United States, trails there had better be. The loathsome greed of the clan and its gang of fools and shits should see long jail terms for the family, even if the capo di capi is dead by then. Cleaning up after this is going to need truck loads of bleach and a lot of wire wool.
Trump really seems to have it in for Britain at the moment.
- The Falklands nonsense. - Threatening a massive tariff again over the digital services tax. - Claiming to speak more for Britain than Prince Harry after the Duke chided the US for not standing by their commitment to Ukraine made when Ukraine gave up it's nuclear weapons.
I do wish he'd piss off.
He seems to have it in for everywhere except maybe Putin's Russia and Milei's Argentina and Netanyahu's Israel
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Indeed. If as reported there will be half normal aviation fuel availability, what limits should be in place now? Who will need to be protected from fuel prices that could increase two or three fold,and who will be left to cope as best they can? What measures need to be put in place to prevent potential famine in places that simply can't afford to bid for fertiliser? etc
I se Lufthansa have been thinking ahead and have cancelled 20,000 flights between now and October. We should maybe be looking at limiting internal flights where there is an alternative (even if less convenient) and prioritising lang haul where there really isn't an alternative. Diesel needs to be prioritised for public service vehicles (emergency etc ) and road haulage.
Heading to the Netherlands the week after next. Driving. Leccy car means no diseasel problems.
Labour and the Tories are going to face slaughter in 2 weeks, and to a lesser extent are the Lib Dems. What about the scenario and odds for a situation with Starmer, Badendoch and Davey ALL resigning and 3 new leaders in place by September..
Davey is a curious one. The Lib Dems should be profiting hugely right now, but aren’t yet. Odd. I guess they don’t have a compelling nationwide offer, sufficient to gain attention. Locally they’ve proven rather good.
Should they? They are basically a slightly more centre right, slightly more anti Brexit version of Starmer Labour.
If you want a rightwing alternative to Labour which backs Brexit you have the Tories or Reform, if you want a left of Starmer Labour party you have the Greens. Why should the LDs be doing better whoever leads them? Davey got as many seats as the LDs probably ever could in 2024
They occupy the position of the Tories when they were a successful party. Before they went all ideological and funny. I would have thought that offer still had appeal out there.
The LDs already won almost all the Remain voting Cameroon loving seats now in Oxfordshire, Surrey, Tunbridge Wells, Sussex, Hertfordshire, Hampshire, Berkshire, Cheltenham and Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, West London etc in 2024 now anyway and on present polls would hold them
Still more for them to win in Gloucestershire, and across Wessex. Not to mention the better heeled parts of Scotland.
The better heeled parts of Scotland will stay Tory to beat the SNP, the only Remain seat not now LD in Gloucestershire is North Cotswolds and while Clfton Brown remains MP it will stay Tory as he has a big personal vote and they won't win Leave seats at a general election either in Gloucestershire or Wessex
As we near the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum the peoples verdict will not be decided by academic modelling of alternatives.
It will be determined by their own experience of travelling the UK and EU. Visibly the UK is falling further and further behind our European neighbours, apart from the core Remania parts of London and SE England.
One of the Brexit paradoxes is that the places in the UK that are doing relatively well economically are those that voted to Remain. Leave was voted for by pensioners and areas in economic decline and those areas have continued and even accelerated that decline.
The noteworthy thing after ten years is how little investment supporters of Brexit put into making their project work. They should for example be cheering Starmer for trying to ameliorate some of the negative effects without going back into the Single Market, rather than carping from the sidelines.
At most they make a "it isn't as bad as you think" argument. Which doesn't show much confidence in their own project.
It isn't a "project".
It's a principle.
And for some a cult.
I thought that was the EU. Most of its supporters certainly behave like it is.
Odd, then, that so many who voted for Brexit have changed their minds.
Labour and the Tories are going to face slaughter in 2 weeks, and to a lesser extent are the Lib Dems. What about the scenario and odds for a situation with Starmer, Badendoch and Davey ALL resigning and 3 new leaders in place by September..
Davey is a curious one. The Lib Dems should be profiting hugely right now, but aren’t yet. Odd. I guess they don’t have a compelling nationwide offer, sufficient to gain attention. Locally they’ve proven rather good.
Should they? They are basically a slightly more centre right, slightly more anti Brexit version of Starmer Labour.
If you want a rightwing alternative to Labour which backs Brexit you have the Tories or Reform, if you want a left of Starmer Labour party you have the Greens. Why should the LDs be doing better whoever leads them? Davey got as many seats as the LDs probably ever could in 2024
They occupy the position of the Tories when they were a successful party. Before they went all ideological and funny. I would have thought that offer still had appeal out there.
The LDs already won almost all the Remain voting Cameroon loving seats now in Oxfordshire, Surrey, Tunbridge Wells, Sussex, Hertfordshire, Hampshire, Berkshire, Cheltenham and Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, West London etc in 2024 now anyway and on present polls would hold them
Still more for them to win in Gloucestershire, and across Wessex. Not to mention the better heeled parts of Scotland.
And a scattering still to win across the prosperous Home Counties, like Casino’s East Hampshire (LD near miss last time) and East Grinstead (voters couldn’t work out which opposition party stood the best chance)
East Grinstead includes much of Wealden which was 54% Leave. East Hampshire is one seat, only voted Remain by 1% and includes a bit of Leave voting Fareham district
As we near the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum the peoples verdict will not be decided by academic modelling of alternatives.
It will be determined by their own experience of travelling the UK and EU. Visibly the UK is falling further and further behind our European neighbours, apart from the core Remania parts of London and SE England.
One of the Brexit paradoxes is that the places in the UK that are doing relatively well economically are those that voted to Remain. Leave was voted for by pensioners and areas in economic decline and those areas have continued and even accelerated that decline.
The noteworthy thing after ten years is how little investment supporters of Brexit put into making their project work. They should for example be cheering Starmer for trying to ameliorate some of the negative effects without going back into the Single Market, rather than carping from the sidelines.
At most they make a "it isn't as bad as you think" argument. Which doesn't show much confidence in their own project.
It isn't a "project".
It's a principle.
And for some a cult.
I thought that was the EU. Most of its supporters certainly behave like it is.
Odd, then, that so many who voted for Brexit have changed their minds.
Labour and the Tories are going to face slaughter in 2 weeks, and to a lesser extent are the Lib Dems. What about the scenario and odds for a situation with Starmer, Badendoch and Davey ALL resigning and 3 new leaders in place by September..
Davey is a curious one. The Lib Dems should be profiting hugely right now, but aren’t yet. Odd. I guess they don’t have a compelling nationwide offer, sufficient to gain attention. Locally they’ve proven rather good.
Should they? They are basically a slightly more centre right, slightly more anti Brexit version of Starmer Labour.
If you want a rightwing alternative to Labour which backs Brexit you have the Tories or Reform, if you want a left of Starmer Labour party you have the Greens. Why should the LDs be doing better whoever leads them? Davey got as many seats as the LDs probably ever could in 2024
They occupy the position of the Tories when they were a successful party. Before they went all ideological and funny. I would have thought that offer still had appeal out there.
The LDs already won almost all the Remain voting Cameroon loving seats now in Oxfordshire, Surrey, Tunbridge Wells, Sussex, Hertfordshire, Hampshire, Berkshire, Cheltenham and Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, West London etc in 2024 now anyway and on present polls would hold them
I would have thought the pragmatic, small c economically liberal, pro business agenda would get some traction everywhere if it could be expressed in modern terms. Since the Tories bizarrely vacated that ground it could be fertile ground for the LibDems. My hunch is Trump is exhausting the appeal of populist nationalism.
Only if anti Brexit, the Remain seats that are economically liberal and pro business almost all went LD in 2024 anyway
Labour and the Tories are going to face slaughter in 2 weeks, and to a lesser extent are the Lib Dems. What about the scenario and odds for a situation with Starmer, Badendoch and Davey ALL resigning and 3 new leaders in place by September..
Davey is a curious one. The Lib Dems should be profiting hugely right now, but aren’t yet. Odd. I guess they don’t have a compelling nationwide offer, sufficient to gain attention. Locally they’ve proven rather good.
Should they? They are basically a slightly more centre right, slightly more anti Brexit version of Starmer Labour.
If you want a rightwing alternative to Labour which backs Brexit you have the Tories or Reform, if you want a left of Starmer Labour party you have the Greens. Why should the LDs be doing better whoever leads them? Davey got as many seats as the LDs probably ever could in 2024
They occupy the position of the Tories when they were a successful party. Before they went all ideological and funny. I would have thought that offer still had appeal out there.
The LDs already won almost all the Remain voting Cameroon loving seats now in Oxfordshire, Surrey, Tunbridge Wells, Sussex, Hertfordshire, Hampshire, Berkshire, Cheltenham and Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, West London etc in 2024 now anyway and on present polls would hold them
I would have thought the pragmatic, small c economically liberal, pro business agenda would get some traction everywhere if it could be expressed in modern terms. Since the Tories bizarrely vacated that ground it could be fertile ground for the LibDems. My hunch is Trump is exhausting the appeal of populist nationalism.
Only if anti Brexit, the Remain seats that are economically liberal and pro business almost all went LD in 2024 anyway
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
Labour and the Tories are going to face slaughter in 2 weeks, and to a lesser extent are the Lib Dems. What about the scenario and odds for a situation with Starmer, Badendoch and Davey ALL resigning and 3 new leaders in place by September..
Davey is a curious one. The Lib Dems should be profiting hugely right now, but aren’t yet. Odd. I guess they don’t have a compelling nationwide offer, sufficient to gain attention. Locally they’ve proven rather good.
Should they? They are basically a slightly more centre right, slightly more anti Brexit version of Starmer Labour.
If you want a rightwing alternative to Labour which backs Brexit you have the Tories or Reform, if you want a left of Starmer Labour party you have the Greens. Why should the LDs be doing better whoever leads them? Davey got as many seats as the LDs probably ever could in 2024
They occupy the position of the Tories when they were a successful party. Before they went all ideological and funny. I would have thought that offer still had appeal out there.
The LDs already won almost all the Remain voting Cameroon loving seats now in Oxfordshire, Surrey, Tunbridge Wells, Sussex, Hertfordshire, Hampshire, Berkshire, Cheltenham and Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, West London etc in 2024 now anyway and on present polls would hold them
I would have thought the pragmatic, small c economically liberal, pro business agenda would get some traction everywhere if it could be expressed in modern terms. Since the Tories bizarrely vacated that ground it could be fertile ground for the LibDems. My hunch is Trump is exhausting the appeal of populist nationalism.
Only if anti Brexit, the Remain seats that are economically liberal and pro business almost all went LD in 2024 anyway
Why? Is Brexit still a thing?
Give it a couple of decades and it'll just be an embarrassing memory
Labour and the Tories are going to face slaughter in 2 weeks, and to a lesser extent are the Lib Dems. What about the scenario and odds for a situation with Starmer, Badendoch and Davey ALL resigning and 3 new leaders in place by September..
Davey is a curious one. The Lib Dems should be profiting hugely right now, but aren’t yet. Odd. I guess they don’t have a compelling nationwide offer, sufficient to gain attention. Locally they’ve proven rather good.
Should they? They are basically a slightly more centre right, slightly more anti Brexit version of Starmer Labour.
If you want a rightwing alternative to Labour which backs Brexit you have the Tories or Reform, if you want a left of Starmer Labour party you have the Greens. Why should the LDs be doing better whoever leads them? Davey got as many seats as the LDs probably ever could in 2024
They occupy the position of the Tories when they were a successful party. Before they went all ideological and funny. I would have thought that offer still had appeal out there.
The LDs already won almost all the Remain voting Cameroon loving seats now in Oxfordshire, Surrey, Tunbridge Wells, Sussex, Hertfordshire, Hampshire, Berkshire, Cheltenham and Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, West London etc in 2024 now anyway and on present polls would hold them
I would have thought the pragmatic, small c economically liberal, pro business agenda would get some traction everywhere if it could be expressed in modern terms. Since the Tories bizarrely vacated that ground it could be fertile ground for the LibDems. My hunch is Trump is exhausting the appeal of populist nationalism.
Only if anti Brexit, the Remain seats that are economically liberal and pro business almost all went LD in 2024 anyway
Why? Is Brexit still a thing?
Of course it is a thing!!! On the latest Yougov numbers 49% of Leave voters in 2016 now back Reform, 22% the Conservatives and just 7% Labour, the LDs or Greens.
26% of 2016 Remain voters still back Labour though, 20% the Greens, 19% the LDs, 14% the Tories and just 8% Reform
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
This is a stupid argument. Utterly lacking in logic.
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
It has not meant a reduction in UK usage of oil and gas. It has simply meant we use the same but now import it, so making us more reliant on long, unreliable supply chains and increasing the cost of the oil and gas we use.
Yes the original hold up was due to a Scottish court. But that was addressed by the ol companies and the licence applications were resubmitted long ago. It is now entirely down to Milliband sitting on the approvals. And the rest of the UK North Sea haemoraging investment is dirctly due to Milliband's continued ban on exploration drilling, his idiotic electrification programme and his punative tax regime.
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
This is a stupid argument. Utterly lacking in logic.
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
It has not meant a reduction in UK usage of oil and gas. It has simply meant we use the same but now import it, so making us more reliant on long, unreliable supply chains and increasing the cost of the oil and gas we use.
Yes the original hold up was due to a Scottish court. But that was addressed by the ol companies and the licence applications were resubmitted long ago. It is now entirely down to Milliband sitting on the approvals. And the rest of the UK North Sea haemoraging investment is dirctly due to Milliband's continued ban on exploration drilling, his idiotic electrification programme and his punative tax regime.
Has the tax regime in the North Sea changed since 2024 - asking because I can’t remember?
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Indeed. If as reported there will be half normal aviation fuel availability, what limits should be in place now? Who will need to be protected from fuel prices that could increase two or three fold,and who will be left to cope as best they can? What measures need to be put in place to prevent potential famine in places that simply can't afford to bid for fertiliser? etc
I se Lufthansa have been thinking ahead and have cancelled 20,000 flights between now and October. We should maybe be looking at limiting internal flights where there is an alternative (even if less convenient) and prioritising lang haul where there really isn't an alternative. Diesel needs to be prioritised for public service vehicles (emergency etc ) and road haulage.
But what can we do about the lack of nitrogen fertiliser ?
Just face the music ?
Maybe stop using so much of the bloody stuff. Stop polluting the rivers and killing the soil.
Here’s a thought - from the point of view of a net zero advocate.
We are on a downward slope of hydrocarbon usage.
At some point, the usage of hydrocarbons on a day to day basis - whether imported use or direct will balance production in the North Sea.
By this I mean that the pharmaceuticals we use, plastics, gas for heating etc whether from abroad or made here will sum up to a certain amount of hydrocarbon usage. And North Sea is the other side of the balance.
At that point we will be relatively energy independent - if oil and gas prices rise, imports may cost more, but the government more in tax from the North Sea.
Anyone done projections on when/if that is going to happen?
Labour and the Tories are going to face slaughter in 2 weeks, and to a lesser extent are the Lib Dems. What about the scenario and odds for a situation with Starmer, Badendoch and Davey ALL resigning and 3 new leaders in place by September..
Davey is a curious one. The Lib Dems should be profiting hugely right now, but aren’t yet. Odd. I guess they don’t have a compelling nationwide offer, sufficient to gain attention. Locally they’ve proven rather good.
I'm seriously interested in politics and read two newspapers daily, but have no idea what the LibDems consistently stand for. And I've got a LibDem MP (Olly Glover), who I never hear from. I vaguely think they're moderate and centre-right, but what policies that leads them to adopt I have little idea - all I see is their leader indulging in one stunt or another, or denouncing another party.
@MarqueeMark "men [must] accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women" No. Where you are going wrong is this attitude that classes MEN as a unit - who would or could all commit sexual crime.
You get the backs up of a huge number of men such as myself - and I would venture a great number of other men on here - who never have and never would commit a sexual crime. Women need to be joined by male voices telling that subset of men who have or could commit sexual crimes that their actions are not in any way acceptable. Let's face it, the subset of misogynistic arseholes aren't by their nature going to listen to women."
Try and understand the distinction between a category and individuals within it. As a category the male sex is a risk to women. That is a fact. Loads of individuals within that category are no risk at all - wouldn't dream of committing sexual crimes etc. But policies to minimise the risk have to be based on categories not on individuals. And the only way we can teach individual men to behave with restraint and self-control is by recognising the risk.
I put it as bluntly as I did because too often discussion on this topic by men seems to me to fail to recognise that men are the risk, that men - if not controlled and taught restraint effectively - are more likely to misbehave than you seem to think (I was raped by a lawyer who everyone thought was a great friendly bloke, wouldn't harm a fly sort of chap), the risk does not simply come from a class called rapists) and, above all, there is little realisation about how having to manage this risk affects women throughout her life from about 11 onwards.
I am well aware that loads of men are decent wonderful people. But loads aren't and women have to arrange their lives on the basis that they aren't. We can't afford to be Pollyanna-ish about this. I agree that men have to teach other men and boys what is or is not acceptable.
Might I gently also suggest that teaching other men what is or is not acceptable starts with learning from and listening to women how they feel about this and how this unacceptable behaviour affects women's lives in ways that men often - because it does not happen to them in anything like the same way - do not appreciate.
Ms Cyclefree, on re-reading my response it does seem rather too brusque. Apologies if so. But it comes out of a frustration as to what can we men actually do to help? It seems from yoiur perspective the only thing we can is to take the expectation that women will judge us with a jaundiced eye - that we MIGHT be a rapist, so their safest course is to assume we WILL be a rapist. That is a pretty wretched world.
If it is any equivalence, men have to assume that when out and about, they are at risk from a stranger who takes the "Did you spill my pint?" route to random violence. Yes it happens - but can we really let that govern our social interactions? You'd like to think that a mixed group of friends would be somewhere the defences might not have to be up all the time. That would be dependent on any indiscrations from a member of that group being made known and punished within the group and if necessary, with the police. I would want to think I would support any women who alleged this, even if it was a she said/he said where the he was a friend. But this also requires women to overcome the reluctance - stigma? - of letting the group know of any such sexual overstepping. How else can we know?
Labour and the Tories are going to face slaughter in 2 weeks, and to a lesser extent are the Lib Dems. What about the scenario and odds for a situation with Starmer, Badendoch and Davey ALL resigning and 3 new leaders in place by September..
Davey is a curious one. The Lib Dems should be profiting hugely right now, but aren’t yet. Odd. I guess they don’t have a compelling nationwide offer, sufficient to gain attention. Locally they’ve proven rather good.
I'm seriously interested in politics and read two newspapers daily, but have no idea what the LibDems consistently stand for. And I've got a LibDem MP (Olly Glover), who I never hear from. I vaguely think they're moderate and centre-right, but what policies that leads them to adopt I have little idea - all I see is their leader indulging in one stunt or another, or denouncing another party.
I don't know what we stand for either. And I'm a local party chair...
I don't think some of you get it. There is a buzz around Manchester. And not just the bees on the buses.
A dynamic, thriving economy led by investment and infrastructure. With a pick yourself up and work ethos, combined with pride in your community.
An awful lot of good that the King of the North can bring to the wider UK.
I'll mark you down as a fan, then...
What's his route back to The Commons?
Lord Stringer
Past performance does not guarantee future returns - your investment remains at risk If he's the future, name the seat.
I just did. Graham Stringer retires, promoting a by-election in his Blackley seat. Which he's held since 1997...
As I’ve said I’m on the Burnham train reluctantly.
A Northern MP “who cares about us” is a good start. But he is for controlled immigration?
I expect he will go straight through immigration to prosperity.
People are upset about immigration because they are poor. People are upset about immigration because their town is dying. Get the economy buzzing and fewer people care about immigrants.
I've made this point forever. Lets say Farage becomes PM and deploys the Royal Navy to Stop All Boats.
Great! Are people happy? No. Because their issue hasn't been fixed. How long would we have to wait before they started to complain that they're still poor and their town is still a shithole?
If he gives up the progress Mahmood has made then he’s going to get destroyed. It is impossible to do the kind of change you’re asking for with the economic background and the time he will have.
I didn't say that. There are things that can be done which are in isolation not enough but cumulatively build into steady progress.
My point is that people don't want to end immigration, they want to be better off and feel like they have a smidge of control in their life. Focus on deporting the darkies and you can't keep people happy - racism is not their aim.
One slice of the population is very definitely unhappy with immigration because they want to feel better off.
Another slice is unhappy because they don't like cultural change (often because they're older) and they're wealthy enough that they didn't feel threatened by the economic hit.
And that's the two arms of the Reform coalition. How you please both of them in government, I hope we never find out. Not in a country where I'm living, anyway.
The poor arm mostly aren't racist, they're just poor and they're largely ignorant of how stuff works. People sell them a simple bad guy - brown people - and a simple solution - deport them. "Yeah ok, we've tried everything else"
Labour and the Tories are going to face slaughter in 2 weeks, and to a lesser extent are the Lib Dems. What about the scenario and odds for a situation with Starmer, Badendoch and Davey ALL resigning and 3 new leaders in place by September..
Davey is a curious one. The Lib Dems should be profiting hugely right now, but aren’t yet. Odd. I guess they don’t have a compelling nationwide offer, sufficient to gain attention. Locally they’ve proven rather good.
I'm seriously interested in politics and read two newspapers daily, but have no idea what the LibDems consistently stand for. And I've got a LibDem MP (Olly Glover), who I never hear from. I vaguely think they're moderate and centre-right, but what policies that leads them to adopt I have little idea - all I see is their leader indulging in one stunt or another, or denouncing another party.
They want a Customs Union with the EU, they opposed the family farm tax and WFA cut and opposed the Mansion Tax and oppose allowing even defensive strikes by US jets being launched from UK airbases and are locally at least very Nimby but otherwise are little different from Starmer Labour
NEW: “No one in their right mind would ever train an LLM foundation model in the UK" - Nick Clegg dismisses UK's 'sovereign AI' push as "slightly dishonest" given our "marginal relevance." Full story, @CityAM
He's right. Up thread there's a post claiming Facebook's AI budget for this year is the equivalent of 100 billion GBP. Or 160% of our Defence budget. We can't afford to play with the big boys.
But Liz Kendall has just promised a fortune to Barnsley to make that an AI hub. So we’re getting there.
Barnsley is doing OK. The town centre has had a major facelift, and footfall is up considerably.
Mind, the only time I've been to Barnsley I got totally drenched standing on an open terrace watching The Toon getting thumped 4-0.
Highlight of the day was when some lads climbed through the window of the pub I was in to get a pint before the match after the doors had been shut because it was too full.
Labour and the Tories are going to face slaughter in 2 weeks, and to a lesser extent are the Lib Dems. What about the scenario and odds for a situation with Starmer, Badendoch and Davey ALL resigning and 3 new leaders in place by September..
Davey is a curious one. The Lib Dems should be profiting hugely right now, but aren’t yet. Odd. I guess they don’t have a compelling nationwide offer, sufficient to gain attention. Locally they’ve proven rather good.
I'm seriously interested in politics and read two newspapers daily, but have no idea what the LibDems consistently stand for. And I've got a LibDem MP (Olly Glover), who I never hear from. I vaguely think they're moderate and centre-right, but what policies that leads them to adopt I have little idea - all I see is their leader indulging in one stunt or another, or denouncing another party.
I don't know what we stand for either. And I'm a local party chair...
Not the right Tories.
Not the bonkers right Reform
Not the left Labour.
Not the bonkers left Greens.
We LibDems are happy here in the middle of the road - being mown down by traffic....
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
This is a stupid argument. Utterly lacking in logic.
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
It has not meant a reduction in UK usage of oil and gas. It has simply meant we use the same but now import it, so making us more reliant on long, unreliable supply chains and increasing the cost of the oil and gas we use.
Yes the original hold up was due to a Scottish court. But that was addressed by the ol companies and the licence applications were resubmitted long ago. It is now entirely down to Milliband sitting on the approvals. And the rest of the UK North Sea haemoraging investment is dirctly due to Milliband's continued ban on exploration drilling, his idiotic electrification programme and his punative tax regime.
Has the tax regime in the North Sea changed since 2024 - asking because I can’t remember?
Yes. It was increased, extended and had exemptions removed by the new Labour Government.
I keep pointing this out. Labour losing Wales is the last citadel, the final redoubt. It's a country-sized Con-Takes-Bootle. It makes Kim Campbell look like Ronald Reagan. Major Nixon of the Reform Easy Company is about to drink all the alcohol in Labour's Eagle's Nest. It's...big.
As we near the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum the peoples verdict will not be decided by academic modelling of alternatives.
It will be determined by their own experience of travelling the UK and EU. Visibly the UK is falling further and further behind our European neighbours, apart from the core Remania parts of London and SE England.
One of the Brexit paradoxes is that the places in the UK that are doing relatively well economically are those that voted to Remain. Leave was voted for by pensioners and areas in economic decline and those areas have continued and even accelerated that decline.
The noteworthy thing after ten years is how little investment supporters of Brexit put into making their project work. They should for example be cheering Starmer for trying to ameliorate some of the negative effects without going back into the Single Market, rather than carping from the sidelines.
At most they make a "it isn't as bad as you think" argument. Which doesn't show much confidence in their own project.
It isn't a "project".
It's a principle.
And for some a cult.
I thought that was the EU. Most of its supporters certainly behave like it is.
Odd, then, that so many who voted for Brexit have changed their minds.
Not really. The fact that people are fooled by a cult doesn't make it any less a cult.
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
The home grown supply of oil and gas is finite. It can be used just once. The only question is whether we take it all out of the ground as fast as possible, or at a much more measured pace while switching away to lean more on renewable and nuclear sources. If the latter, there will be more oil and gas left for future generations, at a point when you and I are pushing up the daisies and the planet might actually be able to cope with the more measured rate of use.
And as those finite oil and gas supplies run out worldwide, such that the cost of extraction increases and prices are pushed up further due to limits on supply, the fact that fields such as Rosebank are available to bring onstream in 50 years time will make them far more valuable as a national resource then than they are now.
Once we abandon fields they will never be re-opened. It is simply not practical. I know. I am responsible for abandoning them and take it from me we are making sure they are really well abandoned because that is the legal requirement.
As we near the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum the peoples verdict will not be decided by academic modelling of alternatives.
It will be determined by their own experience of travelling the UK and EU. Visibly the UK is falling further and further behind our European neighbours, apart from the core Remania parts of London and SE England.
One of the Brexit paradoxes is that the places in the UK that are doing relatively well economically are those that voted to Remain. Leave was voted for by pensioners and areas in economic decline and those areas have continued and even accelerated that decline.
This is complicated by the fact that the Brexit vote was about two separate things.
1) It was about what is better in popular issues, short term stuff, retail politics of migration and whatever.
2) It was about a fundamental idea (whether right or wrong) about sovereignty, or who is in charge.
The obvious parallel is with Scotland, divided over independence just as UK was over EU in 2016. The argument that Scottish independence may be problematic about currency, defence, economics or whatever is one thing. But for lots of Scots the real issue is in fact the basic one of 'who runs Scotland'.
An irony is that 'Scotland should run Scotland' is generally seen as a progressive cause. 'UK should run UK' is generally seen as a luddite one. A further irony is that pro Scottish independence people mostly want to be firmly outside the UK Union, but (if they can) firmly inside the EU Union.
It's not really an irony. The Scots can quite reasonably take the view that they would have considerably more sovereignty as a nation state member of the EU than they have as a subordinate part of the UK. And would be more prosperous inside the EU than outside of it.
Both are pooled sovereignty. In the case of the UK Scotland make up about 8% of the population. In the case of the EU they would make up about 1%.
Neither state of affairs is self governing. In the case of the EU there is an 'ever closer union' commitment to the pooling increasing and the self governing aspect decreasing. (This has notably slowed down since 2016!)
That ignores the much larger difference between statehood and lack of it.
I'm not arguing for Scottish independence, but it's dishonest to pretend they wouldn't exercise more sovereignty as an independent nation with EU membership than they now possess.
Scotland provided the PM and the Chancellor of the UK less than 16 years ago, and had a seat at the UN security council, control of nuclear weapons, access to excellent security services and defence, macroeconomic policy of its currency, and a major direct voice in foreign policy.
The problem is it's voted SNP since and has thus abrogated itself out of UK governance, where its citizens have just the same rights and protections as every other Briton.
In the EU it would have a formal vote as one of a very great number of small countries, and no more.
It's not all dishonest to make this argument.
It is utter total bollox. We are a subjugated colony of England, robbed blind and treated badly. Imagine the temerity of us voting for a Scottish party instead of an English one, how dare we. You halfwitted Little Englander twat.
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
(Snip)
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
Labour and the Tories are going to face slaughter in 2 weeks, and to a lesser extent are the Lib Dems. What about the scenario and odds for a situation with Starmer, Badendoch and Davey ALL resigning and 3 new leaders in place by September..
Davey is a curious one. The Lib Dems should be profiting hugely right now, but aren’t yet. Odd. I guess they don’t have a compelling nationwide offer, sufficient to gain attention. Locally they’ve proven rather good.
I'm seriously interested in politics and read two newspapers daily, but have no idea what the LibDems consistently stand for. And I've got a LibDem MP (Olly Glover), who I never hear from. I vaguely think they're moderate and centre-right, but what policies that leads them to adopt I have little idea - all I see is their leader indulging in one stunt or another, or denouncing another party.
I don't know what we stand for either. And I'm a local party chair...
If you want to stand for something you don't need a chair.
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
(Snip)
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
(Snip)
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
I don't know how you'd test the counterfactual, nor refute it as you are doing. But happy to stand corrected as I'm sure you know more.
Solar power is completely independent of oil - we have never generated significant electricity from oil.
Solar has soared in installation, because it is cheaper than gas and getting cheaper each year. North Sea production doesn’t really affect the world market for gas, so the price is pretty much independent of that.
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
The home grown supply of oil and gas is finite. It can be used just once. The only question is whether we take it all out of the ground as fast as possible, or at a much more measured pace while switching away to lean more on renewable and nuclear sources. If the latter, there will be more oil and gas left for future generations, at a point when you and I are pushing up the daisies and the planet might actually be able to cope with the more measured rate of use.
And as those finite oil and gas supplies run out worldwide, such that the cost of extraction increases and prices are pushed up further due to limits on supply, the fact that fields such as Rosebank are available to bring onstream in 50 years time will make them far more valuable as a national resource then than they are now.
Once we abandon fields they will never be re-opened. It is simply not practical. I know. I am responsible for abandoning them and take it from me we are making sure they are really well abandoned because that is the legal requirement.
What’s your view on the Iranian blockade?
The US narrative is that Kharg island fills up by next weekend, leaving Iran nowhere to store the stuff, so they have to start shutting down production in a way that could be permanent.
Labour and the Tories are going to face slaughter in 2 weeks, and to a lesser extent are the Lib Dems. What about the scenario and odds for a situation with Starmer, Badendoch and Davey ALL resigning and 3 new leaders in place by September..
Davey is a curious one. The Lib Dems should be profiting hugely right now, but aren’t yet. Odd. I guess they don’t have a compelling nationwide offer, sufficient to gain attention. Locally they’ve proven rather good.
I'm seriously interested in politics and read two newspapers daily, but have no idea what the LibDems consistently stand for. And I've got a LibDem MP (Olly Glover), who I never hear from. I vaguely think they're moderate and centre-right, but what policies that leads them to adopt I have little idea - all I see is their leader indulging in one stunt or another, or denouncing another party.
I timed myself. It took me 12 seconds to Google for the LibDem 2024 manifesto and bring it up on screen. If you're actually interested, it is trivially easy to find out what the LibDems stand for (as it true for most parties).
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
(Snip)
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
(Snip)
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
I don't know how you'd test the counterfactual, nor refute it as you are doing. But happy to stand corrected as I'm sure you know more.
Solar power is completely independent of oil - we have never generated significant electricity from oil.
Solar has soared in installation, because it is cheaper than gas and getting cheaper each year. North Sea production doesn’t really affect the world market for gas, so the price is pretty much independent of that.
So solar would be smashing it in either case.
Thanks both.
Agreed on the oil; I was lazily assuming this was a discussion mainly about gas given we are currently quite reliant on it for electricity but looking back at the comment Richard replied to I see oil and gas were conflated. I entirely agree that oil and renewables are not really related.
On the gas point, I agree with you both in a perfect market. But I wonder about the practical implications in the market as it is. If gas becomes relatively costlier/harder to extract in the UK, to what extent are companies who would like to extract it choosing to reduce their presence in the UK electricity market overall, and to what extent are they transferring investment decisions into renewables? And what would this trend look like in the longer term?
I genuinely don't know, but interested if others have figures on this.
Labour and the Tories are going to face slaughter in 2 weeks, and to a lesser extent are the Lib Dems. What about the scenario and odds for a situation with Starmer, Badendoch and Davey ALL resigning and 3 new leaders in place by September..
Davey is a curious one. The Lib Dems should be profiting hugely right now, but aren’t yet. Odd. I guess they don’t have a compelling nationwide offer, sufficient to gain attention. Locally they’ve proven rather good.
I'm seriously interested in politics and read two newspapers daily, but have no idea what the LibDems consistently stand for. And I've got a LibDem MP (Olly Glover), who I never hear from. I vaguely think they're moderate and centre-right, but what policies that leads them to adopt I have little idea - all I see is their leader indulging in one stunt or another, or denouncing another party.
I timed myself. It took me 12 seconds to Google for the LibDem 2024 manifesto and bring it up on screen. If you're actually interested, it is trivially easy to find out what the LibDems stand for (as it true for most parties).
Yet the first time they got tested on it their manifesto was flushed down teh toilet so they could get nice ministerial cars etc.
If it is any equivalence, men have to assume that when out and about, they are at risk from a stranger who takes the "Did you spill my pint?" route to random violence. Yes it happens - but can we really let that govern our social interactions?
Indeed. I note more men are murdered than women. It's about 70:30 to male victims.
I don't think some of you get it. There is a buzz around Manchester. And not just the bees on the buses.
A dynamic, thriving economy led by investment and infrastructure. With a pick yourself up and work ethos, combined with pride in your community.
An awful lot of good that the King of the North can bring to the wider UK.
I'll mark you down as a fan, then...
What's his route back to The Commons?
Lord Stringer
Past performance does not guarantee future returns - your investment remains at risk If he's the future, name the seat.
I just did. Graham Stringer retires, promoting a by-election in his Blackley seat. Which he's held since 1997...
As I’ve said I’m on the Burnham train reluctantly.
A Northern MP “who cares about us” is a good start. But he is for controlled immigration?
I expect he will go straight through immigration to prosperity.
People are upset about immigration because they are poor. People are upset about immigration because their town is dying. Get the economy buzzing and fewer people care about immigrants.
I've made this point forever. Lets say Farage becomes PM and deploys the Royal Navy to Stop All Boats.
Great! Are people happy? No. Because their issue hasn't been fixed. How long would we have to wait before they started to complain that they're still poor and their town is still a shithole?
If he gives up the progress Mahmood has made then he’s going to get destroyed. It is impossible to do the kind of change you’re asking for with the economic background and the time he will have.
I didn't say that. There are things that can be done which are in isolation not enough but cumulatively build into steady progress.
My point is that people don't want to end immigration, they want to be better off and feel like they have a smidge of control in their life. Focus on deporting the darkies and you can't keep people happy - racism is not their aim.
I'm certainly pro immigration but can still see that we need to make the changes Mahmood is driving. There is more to the issue than racism and Islamophobia although both play their part. The numbers from the Boris wave were too high, certainly without corresponding increases in house building.
Also surely the type of immigrant is crucial. They need to be solvent and marketable without dependants who they cannot support.
Also, given men are about 25x more likely to commit violent crimes than women, they can't be men.
I'm sick of seeing everyone drinking lager and watching the shite people are sipping outside all the pubs at lunch today I've decided to bite the bullet.
I've just joined CAMRA. £34 a year. Took 3 minutes.
Labour and the Tories are going to face slaughter in 2 weeks, and to a lesser extent are the Lib Dems. What about the scenario and odds for a situation with Starmer, Badendoch and Davey ALL resigning and 3 new leaders in place by September..
Davey is a curious one. The Lib Dems should be profiting hugely right now, but aren’t yet. Odd. I guess they don’t have a compelling nationwide offer, sufficient to gain attention. Locally they’ve proven rather good.
I'm seriously interested in politics and read two newspapers daily, but have no idea what the LibDems consistently stand for. And I've got a LibDem MP (Olly Glover), who I never hear from. I vaguely think they're moderate and centre-right, but what policies that leads them to adopt I have little idea - all I see is their leader indulging in one stunt or another, or denouncing another party.
I timed myself. It took me 12 seconds to Google for the LibDem 2024 manifesto and bring it up on screen. If you're actually interested, it is trivially easy to find out what the LibDems stand for (as it true for most parties).
Yet the first time they got tested on it their manifesto was flushed down teh toilet so they could get nice ministerial cars etc.
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
(Snip)
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
(Snip)
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
I don't know how you'd test the counterfactual, nor refute it as you are doing. But happy to stand corrected as I'm sure you know more.
Solar power is completely independent of oil - we have never generated significant electricity from oil.
Solar has soared in installation, because it is cheaper than gas and getting cheaper each year. North Sea production doesn’t really affect the world market for gas, so the price is pretty much independent of that.
So solar would be smashing it in either case.
Thanks both.
Agreed on the oil; I was lazily assuming this was a discussion mainly about gas given we are currently quite reliant on it for electricity but looking back at the comment Richard replied to I see oil and gas were conflated. I entirely agree that oil and renewables are not really related.
On the gas point, I agree with you both in a perfect market. But I wonder about the practical implications in the market as it is. If gas becomes relatively costlier/harder to extract in the UK, to what extent are companies who would like to extract it choosing to reduce their presence in the UK electricity market overall, and to what extent are they transferring investment decisions into renewables? And what would this trend look like in the longer term?
I genuinely don't know, but interested if others have figures on this.
We imported around half of all gas consumed last year, so there's a pretty large margin to cut gas use and cut imports without affecting N Sea production. New field scoming inline rae not going to change that substantially.
Labour and the Tories are going to face slaughter in 2 weeks, and to a lesser extent are the Lib Dems. What about the scenario and odds for a situation with Starmer, Badendoch and Davey ALL resigning and 3 new leaders in place by September..
Davey is a curious one. The Lib Dems should be profiting hugely right now, but aren’t yet. Odd. I guess they don’t have a compelling nationwide offer, sufficient to gain attention. Locally they’ve proven rather good.
I'm seriously interested in politics and read two newspapers daily, but have no idea what the LibDems consistently stand for. And I've got a LibDem MP (Olly Glover), who I never hear from. I vaguely think they're moderate and centre-right, but what policies that leads them to adopt I have little idea - all I see is their leader indulging in one stunt or another, or denouncing another party.
I timed myself. It took me 12 seconds to Google for the LibDem 2024 manifesto and bring it up on screen. If you're actually interested, it is trivially easy to find out what the LibDems stand for (as it true for most parties).
Yet the first time they got tested on it their manifesto was flushed down teh toilet so they could get nice ministerial cars etc.
You can't get everything you want in a coalition.
You can't do much in opposition as Kemi is finding out but the lesson learned from the coalition is the junior partner goes into the meat grinder. So looking forward to the Tory/Reform coalition.
Labour and the Tories are going to face slaughter in 2 weeks, and to a lesser extent are the Lib Dems. What about the scenario and odds for a situation with Starmer, Badendoch and Davey ALL resigning and 3 new leaders in place by September..
Davey is a curious one. The Lib Dems should be profiting hugely right now, but aren’t yet. Odd. I guess they don’t have a compelling nationwide offer, sufficient to gain attention. Locally they’ve proven rather good.
I'm seriously interested in politics and read two newspapers daily, but have no idea what the LibDems consistently stand for. And I've got a LibDem MP (Olly Glover), who I never hear from. I vaguely think they're moderate and centre-right, but what policies that leads them to adopt I have little idea - all I see is their leader indulging in one stunt or another, or denouncing another party.
I timed myself. It took me 12 seconds to Google for the LibDem 2024 manifesto and bring it up on screen. If you're actually interested, it is trivially easy to find out what the LibDems stand for (as it true for most parties).
Yes...but my point is that they make no effort in my area to inform householders what they stand for.
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
(Snip)
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
(Snip)
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
I don't know how you'd test the counterfactual, nor refute it as you are doing. But happy to stand corrected as I'm sure you know more.
Solar power is completely independent of oil - we have never generated significant electricity from oil.
Solar has soared in installation, because it is cheaper than gas and getting cheaper each year. North Sea production doesn’t really affect the world market for gas, so the price is pretty much independent of that.
So solar would be smashing it in either case.
Thanks both.
Agreed on the oil; I was lazily assuming this was a discussion mainly about gas given we are currently quite reliant on it for electricity but looking back at the comment Richard replied to I see oil and gas were conflated. I entirely agree that oil and renewables are not really related.
On the gas point, I agree with you both in a perfect market. But I wonder about the practical implications in the market as it is. If gas becomes relatively costlier/harder to extract in the UK, to what extent are companies who would like to extract it choosing to reduce their presence in the UK electricity market overall, and to what extent are they transferring investment decisions into renewables? And what would this trend look like in the longer term?
I genuinely don't know, but interested if others have figures on this.
The companies selling it, sell it on the world market, at the world market price.
They have no generating capacity themselves.
The generating companies buy gas at the world market price.
The U.K. production, in any event, is not big enough to shift world prices (the U.K. benefit is taxes and jobs)
So U.K. production of gas would have next to no effect on the decision of the generating companies to buy more solar.
I think Labour's polling will increase - temporarily - as soon as Burnham gets in.
Right now the exodus to the Greens is saying "get Starmer out and be more left wing" and the exodus to Reform in part is "get Starmer out and tackle immigration".
These people having voted Labour in 2024, are at least Labour-flirting.
@MarqueeMark "men [must] accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women" No. Where you are going wrong is this attitude that classes MEN as a unit - who would or could all commit sexual crime.
You get the backs up of a huge number of men such as myself - and I would venture a great number of other men on here - who never have and never would commit a sexual crime. Women need to be joined by male voices telling that subset of men who have or could commit sexual crimes that their actions are not in any way acceptable. Let's face it, the subset of misogynistic arseholes aren't by their nature going to listen to women."
Try and understand the distinction between a category and individuals within it. As a category the male sex is a risk to women. That is a fact. Loads of individuals within that category are no risk at all - wouldn't dream of committing sexual crimes etc. But policies to minimise the risk have to be based on categories not on individuals. And the only way we can teach individual men to behave with restraint and self-control is by recognising the risk.
I put it as bluntly as I did because too often discussion on this topic by men seems to me to fail to recognise that men are the risk, that men - if not controlled and taught restraint effectively - are more likely to misbehave than you seem to think (I was raped by a lawyer who everyone thought was a great friendly bloke, wouldn't harm a fly sort of chap), the risk does not simply come from a class called rapists) and, above all, there is little realisation about how having to manage this risk affects women throughout her life from about 11 onwards.
I am well aware that loads of men are decent wonderful people. But loads aren't and women have to arrange their lives on the basis that they aren't. We can't afford to be Pollyanna-ish about this. I agree that men have to teach other men and boys what is or is not acceptable.
Might I gently also suggest that teaching other men what is or is not acceptable starts with learning from and listening to women how they feel about this and how this unacceptable behaviour affects women's lives in ways that men often - because it does not happen to them in anything like the same way - do not appreciate.
Ms Cyclefree, on re-reading my response it does seem rather too brusque. Apologies if so. But it comes out of a frustration as to what can we men actually do to help? It seems from yoiur perspective the only thing we can is to take the expectation that women will judge us with a jaundiced eye - that we MIGHT be a rapist, so their safest course is to assume we WILL be a rapist. That is a pretty wretched world.
If it is any equivalence, men have to assume that when out and about, they are at risk from a stranger who takes the "Did you spill my pint?" route to random violence. Yes it happens - but can we really let that govern our social interactions? You'd like to think that a mixed group of friends would be somewhere the defences might not have to be up all the time. That would be dependent on any indiscrations from a member of that group being made known and punished within the group and if necessary, with the police. I would want to think I would support any women who alleged this, even if it was a she said/he said where the he was a friend. But this also requires women to overcome the reluctance - stigma? - of letting the group know of any such sexual overstepping. How else can we know?
I was doing some rough sums and I think I have had more than 400 years of sentences imposed on rapists and child abusers (so often both). Can I generalise from this experience?
Well, with one exception art and part those convicted were all male. The overwhelming feature is selfishness. Sex is what they want to do when and how they want to do it. They have no interest in whether their partner enjoys it, hates it or is bored. Drink and drugs often act as disinhibitors. Violence, actual or implied is commonplace but not universal. A surprising ( to me anyway) number of men seem to enjoy sex with a woman who is unconscious. The majority are stupid, ill educated and boorish but there are exceptions. Sex seems all too often a way of dominating in an abusive relationship. It is a way of humiliating and grinding down the women. A lot of it is about power rather than pleasure.
Nothing terribly original I’m afraid but I can certainly understand where @Cyclefree is coming from. The world is not what the majority would wish it to be.
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
(Snip)
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
(Snip)
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
I don't know how you'd test the counterfactual, nor refute it as you are doing. But happy to stand corrected as I'm sure you know more.
Solar power is completely independent of oil - we have never generated significant electricity from oil.
Solar has soared in installation, because it is cheaper than gas and getting cheaper each year. North Sea production doesn’t really affect the world market for gas, so the price is pretty much independent of that.
So solar would be smashing it in either case.
Thanks both.
Agreed on the oil; I was lazily assuming this was a discussion mainly about gas given we are currently quite reliant on it for electricity but looking back at the comment Richard replied to I see oil and gas were conflated. I entirely agree that oil and renewables are not really related.
On the gas point, I agree with you both in a perfect market. But I wonder about the practical implications in the market as it is. If gas becomes relatively costlier/harder to extract in the UK, to what extent are companies who would like to extract it choosing to reduce their presence in the UK electricity market overall, and to what extent are they transferring investment decisions into renewables? And what would this trend look like in the longer term?
I genuinely don't know, but interested if others have figures on this.
We imported around half of all gas consumed last year, so there's a pretty large margin to cut gas use and cut imports without affecting N Sea production. New field scoming inline rae not going to change that substantially.
Is this narrative not continuing to assume rational behaviour from companies, though?
An alternative narrative might be that a company is aiming to invest £X million in the UK to gain market share in energy production, and sees renewable investment as relatively more attractive than bringing a new gas field into the market because of the restrictions on North Sea gas extraction? I'm just not sure that companies are as nimble with their investment decisions as you are suggesting, at least in the short-term.
I'm not necessarily advocating this because (a) I don't know if it is how actual companies in this market are likely to behave and (b) it has significant downside risks, especially on longer-term investment decisions.
I am, though, questioning the idea that we know that the restrictions on North Sea extraction have no impact on renewablea generation without more detailed insights and figures.
I think Labour's polling will increase - temporarily - as soon as Burnham gets in.
Right now the exodus to the Greens is saying "get Starmer out and be more left wing" and the exodus to Reform in part is "get Starmer out and tackle immigration".
These people having voted Labour in 2024, are at least Labour-flirting.
If I remember correctly the Brown bump was about four months long. If Burnham can't manage that then you really are stuffed.
@MarqueeMark "men [must] accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women" No. Where you are going wrong is this attitude that classes MEN as a unit - who would or could all commit sexual crime.
You get the backs up of a huge number of men such as myself - and I would venture a great number of other men on here - who never have and never would commit a sexual crime. Women need to be joined by male voices telling that subset of men who have or could commit sexual crimes that their actions are not in any way acceptable. Let's face it, the subset of misogynistic arseholes aren't by their nature going to listen to women."
Try and understand the distinction between a category and individuals within it. As a category the male sex is a risk to women. That is a fact. Loads of individuals within that category are no risk at all - wouldn't dream of committing sexual crimes etc. But policies to minimise the risk have to be based on categories not on individuals. And the only way we can teach individual men to behave with restraint and self-control is by recognising the risk.
I put it as bluntly as I did because too often discussion on this topic by men seems to me to fail to recognise that men are the risk, that men - if not controlled and taught restraint effectively - are more likely to misbehave than you seem to think (I was raped by a lawyer who everyone thought was a great friendly bloke, wouldn't harm a fly sort of chap), the risk does not simply come from a class called rapists) and, above all, there is little realisation about how having to manage this risk affects women throughout her life from about 11 onwards.
I am well aware that loads of men are decent wonderful people. But loads aren't and women have to arrange their lives on the basis that they aren't. We can't afford to be Pollyanna-ish about this. I agree that men have to teach other men and boys what is or is not acceptable.
Might I gently also suggest that teaching other men what is or is not acceptable starts with learning from and listening to women how they feel about this and how this unacceptable behaviour affects women's lives in ways that men often - because it does not happen to them in anything like the same way - do not appreciate.
Ms Cyclefree, on re-reading my response it does seem rather too brusque. Apologies if so. But it comes out of a frustration as to what can we men actually do to help? It seems from yoiur perspective the only thing we can is to take the expectation that women will judge us with a jaundiced eye - that we MIGHT be a rapist, so their safest course is to assume we WILL be a rapist. That is a pretty wretched world.
If it is any equivalence, men have to assume that when out and about, they are at risk from a stranger who takes the "Did you spill my pint?" route to random violence. Yes it happens - but can we really let that govern our social interactions? You'd like to think that a mixed group of friends would be somewhere the defences might not have to be up all the time. That would be dependent on any indiscrations from a member of that group being made known and punished within the group and if necessary, with the police. I would want to think I would support any women who alleged this, even if it was a she said/he said where the he was a friend. But this also requires women to overcome the reluctance - stigma? - of letting the group know of any such sexual overstepping. How else can we know?
I was doing some rough sums and I think I have had more than 400 years of sentences imposed on rapists and child abusers (so often both). Can I generalise from this experience?
Well, with one exception art and part those convicted were all male. The overwhelming feature is selfishness. Sex is what they want to do when and how they want to do it. They have no interest in whether their partner enjoys it, hates it or is bored. Drink and drugs often act as disinhibitors. Violence, actual or implied is commonplace but not universal. A surprising ( to me anyway) number of men seem to enjoy sex with a woman who is unconscious. The majority are stupid, ill educated and boorish but there are exceptions. Sex seems all too often a way of dominating in an abusive relationship. It is a way of humiliating and grinding down the women. A lot of it is about power rather than pleasure.
Nothing terribly original I’m afraid but I can certainly understand where @Cyclefree is coming from. The world is not what the majority would wish it to be.
Did you not say that a significant proportion of your work is now on sexual offences?
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Indeed. If as reported there will be half normal aviation fuel availability, what limits should be in place now? Who will need to be protected from fuel prices that could increase two or three fold,and who will be left to cope as best they can? What measures need to be put in place to prevent potential famine in places that simply can't afford to bid for fertiliser? etc
I se Lufthansa have been thinking ahead and have cancelled 20,000 flights between now and October. We should maybe be looking at limiting internal flights where there is an alternative (even if less convenient) and prioritising lang haul where there really isn't an alternative. Diesel needs to be prioritised for public service vehicles (emergency etc ) and road haulage.
But what can we do about the lack of nitrogen fertiliser ?
Just face the music ?
Maybe stop using so much of the bloody stuff. Stop polluting the rivers and killing the soil.
At the time of the rape he was homeless, having been discharged from psychiatric care three days earlier without a support package after it was decided he was no longer psychotic.
If he weren't white, I am certain the mental health card would have been played.
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
The home grown supply of oil and gas is finite. It can be used just once. The only question is whether we take it all out of the ground as fast as possible, or at a much more measured pace while switching away to lean more on renewable and nuclear sources. If the latter, there will be more oil and gas left for future generations, at a point when you and I are pushing up the daisies and the planet might actually be able to cope with the more measured rate of use.
And as those finite oil and gas supplies run out worldwide, such that the cost of extraction increases and prices are pushed up further due to limits on supply, the fact that fields such as Rosebank are available to bring onstream in 50 years time will make them far more valuable as a national resource then than they are now.
Once we abandon fields they will never be re-opened. It is simply not practical. I know. I am responsible for abandoning them and take it from me we are making sure they are really well abandoned because that is the legal requirement.
What’s your view on the Iranian blockade?
The US narrative is that Kharg island fills up by next weekend, leaving Iran nowhere to store the stuff, so they have to start shutting down production in a way that could be permanent.
That’s pretty much what people like Neil Woodford (yup, I know !!) are saying too and they’re very hard to restart as they’re all, or mostly, mature.
Do you think the hardcore IRGC loons care either way ?
@MarqueeMark "men [must] accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women" No. Where you are going wrong is this attitude that classes MEN as a unit - who would or could all commit sexual crime.
You get the backs up of a huge number of men such as myself - and I would venture a great number of other men on here - who never have and never would commit a sexual crime. Women need to be joined by male voices telling that subset of men who have or could commit sexual crimes that their actions are not in any way acceptable. Let's face it, the subset of misogynistic arseholes aren't by their nature going to listen to women."
Try and understand the distinction between a category and individuals within it. As a category the male sex is a risk to women. That is a fact. Loads of individuals within that category are no risk at all - wouldn't dream of committing sexual crimes etc. But policies to minimise the risk have to be based on categories not on individuals. And the only way we can teach individual men to behave with restraint and self-control is by recognising the risk.
I put it as bluntly as I did because too often discussion on this topic by men seems to me to fail to recognise that men are the risk, that men - if not controlled and taught restraint effectively - are more likely to misbehave than you seem to think (I was raped by a lawyer who everyone thought was a great friendly bloke, wouldn't harm a fly sort of chap), the risk does not simply come from a class called rapists) and, above all, there is little realisation about how having to manage this risk affects women throughout her life from about 11 onwards.
I am well aware that loads of men are decent wonderful people. But loads aren't and women have to arrange their lives on the basis that they aren't. We can't afford to be Pollyanna-ish about this. I agree that men have to teach other men and boys what is or is not acceptable.
Might I gently also suggest that teaching other men what is or is not acceptable starts with learning from and listening to women how they feel about this and how this unacceptable behaviour affects women's lives in ways that men often - because it does not happen to them in anything like the same way - do not appreciate.
Ms Cyclefree, on re-reading my response it does seem rather too brusque. Apologies if so. But it comes out of a frustration as to what can we men actually do to help? It seems from yoiur perspective the only thing we can is to take the expectation that women will judge us with a jaundiced eye - that we MIGHT be a rapist, so their safest course is to assume we WILL be a rapist. That is a pretty wretched world.
If it is any equivalence, men have to assume that when out and about, they are at risk from a stranger who takes the "Did you spill my pint?" route to random violence. Yes it happens - but can we really let that govern our social interactions? You'd like to think that a mixed group of friends would be somewhere the defences might not have to be up all the time. That would be dependent on any indiscrations from a member of that group being made known and punished within the group and if necessary, with the police. I would want to think I would support any women who alleged this, even if it was a she said/he said where the he was a friend. But this also requires women to overcome the reluctance - stigma? - of letting the group know of any such sexual overstepping. How else can we know?
I was doing some rough sums and I think I have had more than 400 years of sentences imposed on rapists and child abusers (so often both). Can I generalise from this experience?
Well, with one exception art and part those convicted were all male. The overwhelming feature is selfishness. Sex is what they want to do when and how they want to do it. They have no interest in whether their partner enjoys it, hates it or is bored. Drink and drugs often act as disinhibitors. Violence, actual or implied is commonplace but not universal. A surprising ( to me anyway) number of men seem to enjoy sex with a woman who is unconscious. The majority are stupid, ill educated and boorish but there are exceptions. Sex seems all too often a way of dominating in an abusive relationship. It is a way of humiliating and grinding down the women. A lot of it is about power rather than pleasure.
Nothing terribly original I’m afraid but I can certainly understand where @Cyclefree is coming from. The world is not what the majority would wish it to be.
Did you not say that a significant proportion of your work is now on sexual offences?
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
(Snip)
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
(Snip)
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
I don't know how you'd test the counterfactual, nor refute it as you are doing. But happy to stand corrected as I'm sure you know more.
Solar power is completely independent of oil - we have never generated significant electricity from oil.
Solar has soared in installation, because it is cheaper than gas and getting cheaper each year. North Sea production doesn’t really affect the world market for gas, so the price is pretty much independent of that.
So solar would be smashing it in either case.
Thanks both.
Agreed on the oil; I was lazily assuming this was a discussion mainly about gas given we are currently quite reliant on it for electricity but looking back at the comment Richard replied to I see oil and gas were conflated. I entirely agree that oil and renewables are not really related.
On the gas point, I agree with you both in a perfect market. But I wonder about the practical implications in the market as it is. If gas becomes relatively costlier/harder to extract in the UK, to what extent are companies who would like to extract it choosing to reduce their presence in the UK electricity market overall, and to what extent are they transferring investment decisions into renewables? And what would this trend look like in the longer term?
I genuinely don't know, but interested if others have figures on this.
The companies selling it, sell it on the world market, at the world market price.
They have no generating capacity themselves.
The generating companies buy gas at the world market price.
The U.K. production, in any event, is not big enough to shift world prices (the U.K. benefit is taxes and jobs)
So U.K. production of gas would have next to no effect on the decision of the generating companies to buy more solar.
I'm with you on all of that.
What about investment in future generation though?
I can accept that the practical.answer may be that they just invest elsewhere in the world. But I am interested in whether we have figures to say that this is actually happening, rather than that the generating companies are switching investments towards renewable capacity in the UK.
I take the point also about solar being so cheap, but then prima facie does that not making switching investments rather than removing them from UK more attractive?
Counter-factuals are really hard. Since 2016, when Britain voted to the Leave the EU, we've had a pandemic, a Boriswave, and war in Ukraine.
We might have performed better in the EU. We might have performed worse. It's very hard to know for sure, because the biggest deteriminant of economic success are either (a) factors completely out of your control (see above), or (b) driven by domestic policy.
The British contingent did not cover themselves in glory, on this occasion (though they very much did in other battles): ...As darkness descended on 24 April, Burke decided not to utilize radio contacts with 2 PPCLI headquarters on the summit of Hill 677. Burke ordered a Dakota aircraft equipped with loudspeakers and personally flew over the 2 PPCLI positions on Hill 677.[92] He announced to the soldiers below that they were now on their own, cut off from any support and would have to fight the coming battle alone. He wished them good luck and encouraged them to fight bravely. He then flew back to Brigade HQ, amidst derisive response from the unsettled soldiers. Burke's brief appearance over the battlefield served to cause further apprehension among the 2 PPCLI.[92] Many of the less experienced 2 PPCLI soldiers voiced a desire to run and abandon the position. Veteran war hero Tommy Prince played a central role in steadying and motivating the frightened men.[92] Stone and 2 PPCLI could no longer expect that 27th Brigade HQ forces would continue to engage the enemy or would assemble a relief column to break through the PVA stranglehold on the supply road at Tungmudae. Stone was never in any doubt as to the essential strategic significance of Hill 677 for the UN forces and he issued a straightforward order to his battalion on the battalion radio sets, "We're surrounded. We'll hold this position until we're relieved." "No retreat, no surrender."..
Brigadier Burke was removed from command after the battle; the Canadian Stone was awarded a DSO.
At the time of the rape he was homeless, having been discharged from psychiatric care three days earlier without a support package after it was decided he was no longer psychotic.
If he weren't white, I am certain the mental health card would have been played.
It was played! Why do you think it's been reported?
If there's anyone here who still plays games then get Pragmata. It's absolutely incredible, amazing gameplay, absolutely incredible story and basically the best father/daughter relationship I've seen in gaming (or anywhere else on screen for that matter).
Even my wife who is absolutely a non-gamer sat down and watched me play and cried at a few points and then was in tears again at the end.
It's an absolute must play. Seriously it's probably in my top 5 games of all time.
Counter-factuals are really hard. Since 2016, when Britain voted to the Leave the EU, we've had a pandemic, a Boriswave, and war in Ukraine.
We might have performed better in the EU. We might have performed worse. It's very hard to know for sure, because the biggest deteriminant of economic success are either (a) factors completely out of your control (see above), or (b) driven by domestic policy.
Two or three things I think we can be fairly confident about Brexit:
It has made us more divided and tribal It has lowered the standard of our political leaders and weakened our international partnerships
The economic counter factuals really don't matter as however many formulas you put into the model, however much research you put into the inputs, it doesn't make the models true and won't convince diehards (or indeed reasonable peeps) on the other side.
Counter-factuals are really hard. Since 2016, when Britain voted to the Leave the EU, we've had a pandemic, a Boriswave, and war in Ukraine.
We might have performed better in the EU. We might have performed worse. It's very hard to know for sure, because the biggest deteriminant of economic success are either (a) factors completely out of your control (see above), or (b) driven by domestic policy.
We would not have had the Boriswave, Truss without Brexit. Arguably CV19 would have been managed better by a Cameron/Osborne administration. Perhaps Putin would have thought twice if he thought Europe was united. Heck Trump might also have lost, he cited Brexit as helpful.
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
The home grown supply of oil and gas is finite. It can be used just once. The only question is whether we take it all out of the ground as fast as possible, or at a much more measured pace while switching away to lean more on renewable and nuclear sources. If the latter, there will be more oil and gas left for future generations, at a point when you and I are pushing up the daisies and the planet might actually be able to cope with the more measured rate of use.
And as those finite oil and gas supplies run out worldwide, such that the cost of extraction increases and prices are pushed up further due to limits on supply, the fact that fields such as Rosebank are available to bring onstream in 50 years time will make them far more valuable as a national resource then than they are now.
Once we abandon fields they will never be re-opened. It is simply not practical. I know. I am responsible for abandoning them and take it from me we are making sure they are really well abandoned because that is the legal requirement.
It is treacherous sabotage. Not what you're doing - someone needs to do that well and safely. The policy.
At the time of the rape he was homeless, having been discharged from psychiatric care three days earlier without a support package after it was decided he was no longer psychotic.
If he weren't white, I am certain the mental health card would have been played.
It was played! Why do you think it's been reported?
Would be a bit off for the media not to mention a pertinent fact. I was thinking more around the CPS and the judge.
At the time of the rape he was homeless, having been discharged from psychiatric care three days earlier without a support package after it was decided he was no longer psychotic.
If he weren't white, I am certain the mental health card would have been played.
It was played! Why do you think it's been reported?
Would be a bit off for the media not to mention a pertinent fact. I was thinking more around the CPS and the judge.
It was considered and rejected "The judge told Ashby that while a doctor's report had concluded his mental health was negatively affected at the time of the offences, it was "not by any underlying disorder or mental illness" but by "your voluntary use of illicit drugs"."
We imported around half of all gas consumed last year, so there's a pretty large margin to cut gas use and cut imports without affecting N Sea production. New field scoming inline rae not going to change that substantially.
It is worth remembering that natural gas fields will tend to have pretty high decline rates - often as much as 10% per year. So, domestic production will drop without extensive new field development.
If there's anyone here who still plays games then get Pragmata. It's absolutely incredible, amazing gameplay, absolutely incredible story and basically the best father/daughter relationship I've seen in gaming (or anywhere else on screen for that matter).
Even my wife who is absolutely a non-gamer sat down and watched me play and cried at a few points and then was in tears again at the end.
It's an absolute must play. Seriously it's probably in my top 5 games of all time.
Counter-factuals are really hard. Since 2016, when Britain voted to the Leave the EU, we've had a pandemic, a Boriswave, and war in Ukraine.
We might have performed better in the EU. We might have performed worse. It's very hard to know for sure, because the biggest deteriminant of economic success are either (a) factors completely out of your control (see above), or (b) driven by domestic policy.
We would not have had the Boriswave, Truss without Brexit. Arguably CV19 would have been managed better by a Cameron/Osborne administration. Perhaps Putin would have thought twice if he thought Europe was united. Heck Trump might also have lost, he cited Brexit as helpful.
Sure: it's also possible that if we had not left the EU, then UKIP would have won the 2019 General Election.
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
The home grown supply of oil and gas is finite. It can be used just once. The only question is whether we take it all out of the ground as fast as possible, or at a much more measured pace while switching away to lean more on renewable and nuclear sources. If the latter, there will be more oil and gas left for future generations, at a point when you and I are pushing up the daisies and the planet might actually be able to cope with the more measured rate of use.
And as those finite oil and gas supplies run out worldwide, such that the cost of extraction increases and prices are pushed up further due to limits on supply, the fact that fields such as Rosebank are available to bring onstream in 50 years time will make them far more valuable as a national resource then than they are now.
Once we abandon fields they will never be re-opened. It is simply not practical. I know. I am responsible for abandoning them and take it from me we are making sure they are really well abandoned because that is the legal requirement.
It is treacherous sabotage. Not what you're doing - someone needs to do that well and safely. The policy.
Don't be ridiculous. You could say the same about cutting ourselves off from the sm causing the loss of many sme and GDP.
It's only an energy source for god sake. We are replacing it hand over fist.
Counter-factuals are really hard. Since 2016, when Britain voted to the Leave the EU, we've had a pandemic, a Boriswave, and war in Ukraine.
We might have performed better in the EU. We might have performed worse. It's very hard to know for sure, because the biggest deteriminant of economic success are either (a) factors completely out of your control (see above), or (b) driven by domestic policy.
We would not have had the Boriswave, Truss without Brexit. Arguably CV19 would have been managed better by a Cameron/Osborne administration. Perhaps Putin would have thought twice if he thought Europe was united. Heck Trump might also have lost, he cited Brexit as helpful.
Sure: it's also possible that if we had not left the EU, then UKIP would have won the 2019 General Election.
Counter-factuals are counter-factual.
Nah. It’s pretty obviously all the fault of Nick Clegg. That’s where the timeline collapsed.
At the time of the rape he was homeless, having been discharged from psychiatric care three days earlier without a support package after it was decided he was no longer psychotic.
If he weren't white, I am certain the mental health card would have been played.
It was played! Why do you think it's been reported?
Would be a bit off for the media not to mention a pertinent fact. I was thinking more around the CPS and the judge.
It was considered and rejected "The judge told Ashby that while a doctor's report had concluded his mental health was negatively affected at the time of the offences, it was "not by any underlying disorder or mental illness" but by "your voluntary use of illicit drugs"."
Which presumably got him sectioned to begin with. And by the way, where do the parties stand on drugs these days?
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
The home grown supply of oil and gas is finite. It can be used just once. The only question is whether we take it all out of the ground as fast as possible, or at a much more measured pace while switching away to lean more on renewable and nuclear sources. If the latter, there will be more oil and gas left for future generations, at a point when you and I are pushing up the daisies and the planet might actually be able to cope with the more measured rate of use.
And as those finite oil and gas supplies run out worldwide, such that the cost of extraction increases and prices are pushed up further due to limits on supply, the fact that fields such as Rosebank are available to bring onstream in 50 years time will make them far more valuable as a national resource then than they are now.
Once we abandon fields they will never be re-opened. It is simply not practical. I know. I am responsible for abandoning them and take it from me we are making sure they are really well abandoned because that is the legal requirement.
It is treacherous sabotage. Not what you're doing - someone needs to do that well and safely. The policy.
Don't be ridiculous. You could say the same about cutting ourselves off from the sm causing the loss of many sme and GDP.
It's only an energy source for god sake. We are replacing it hand over fist.
That's simply not true.
Oil and gas are used for much more than just energy.
Natural gas is used to make nitrogen fertilizer, without which we would all starve.
While oil is used in plastics, road surfaces, pharmaceuticals, and much more.
Labour and the Tories are going to face slaughter in 2 weeks, and to a lesser extent are the Lib Dems. What about the scenario and odds for a situation with Starmer, Badendoch and Davey ALL resigning and 3 new leaders in place by September..
Davey is a curious one. The Lib Dems should be profiting hugely right now, but aren’t yet. Odd. I guess they don’t have a compelling nationwide offer, sufficient to gain attention. Locally they’ve proven rather good.
I'm seriously interested in politics and read two newspapers daily, but have no idea what the LibDems consistently stand for. And I've got a LibDem MP (Olly Glover), who I never hear from. I vaguely think they're moderate and centre-right, but what policies that leads them to adopt I have little idea - all I see is their leader indulging in one stunt or another, or denouncing another party.
I timed myself. It took me 12 seconds to Google for the LibDem 2024 manifesto and bring it up on screen. If you're actually interested, it is trivially easy to find out what the LibDems stand for (as it true for most parties).
reads two newspapers daily like it's 1999. get with the times mr palmer
This should shred support for Nigel Farage and Reform.
US could drop backing of UK claim to Falklands
The US could review its position on Britain’s claim to the Falklands Islands as part of a broader move to punish Nato allies the Trump Administration believes failed to support the war with Iran, according to a report.
An internal Pentagon email outlines options for the US to respond to the perceived lack of support, including suspending Spain from the alliance and reassessing American diplomatic support for longstanding European “imperial possessions,” such as the Falkland Islands near Argentina.
The policy options are detailed in a note expressing frustration at some allies’ reluctance or refusal to grant the United States access, basing and overflight rights — known as ABO — for the Iran war, an official told Reuters, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the email.
The email stated that ABO is “just the absolute baseline for Nato,” according to the official, who added that the options were circulating at high levels in the Pentagon.
Britain and Argentina fought a war in 1982 over the Falklands, after Argentinian forces staged an invasion. Some 650 Argentine soldiers and 255 British troops died before Argentina surrendered.
On topic, sort of: Japanese make millions of cars in the US, as this summary from Google AI shows:
Key Japanese Cars Made in the USA Toyota: Camry (Kentucky/Indiana), Tacoma (Texas), Tundra (Texas), Highlander (Indiana), RAV4 (Kentucky/Ontario), Corolla (Mississippi). Honda: Accord (Ohio), CR-V (Ohio/Indiana), Civic (Indiana), Odyssey (Alabama), Pilot (Alabama), Passport (Alabama). Nissan: Pathfinder (Tennessee), Titan (Mississippi), Altima (Tennessee), Rogue (Tennessee). Subaru: Outback (Indiana), Ascent (Indiana), Legacy (Indiana), Impreza (Indiana). Mazda: CX-50 (Alabama - Mazda Toyota Manufacturing). Acura: TLX (Ohio), ILX (Ohio), MDX (Ohio). Infiniti: QX60 (Tennessee).
And some Hyundai and Kia cars are built in America.
Two points about these plants that some will find awkward: The states where these plants are located generally vote Republican. The plants are non-union. (I think there is one recent exception.)
(I use "make" and "built" deliberately, rather than "manufactured", since nearly all modern cars have parts from other nations, regardless of where they are finally assembled.)
I'm sick of seeing everyone drinking lager and watching the shite people are sipping outside all the pubs at lunch today I've decided to bite the bullet.
I've just joined CAMRA. £34 a year. Took 3 minutes.
Comments
Just face the music ?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/24/syria-arrests-suspected-leader-of-tadamon-massacre
Which would make them EU supporters.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo
As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card.
UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
26% of 2016 Remain voters still back Labour though, 20% the Greens, 19% the LDs, 14% the Tories and just 8% Reform
https://yougov.com/en-gb/trackers/voting-intention?crossBreak=ivotedtoleave
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
It has not meant a reduction in UK usage of oil and gas. It has simply meant we use the same but now import it, so making us more reliant on long, unreliable supply chains and increasing the cost of the oil and gas we use.
Yes the original hold up was due to a Scottish court. But that was addressed by the ol companies and the licence applications were resubmitted long ago. It is now entirely down to Milliband sitting on the approvals. And the rest of the UK North Sea haemoraging investment is dirctly due to Milliband's continued ban on exploration drilling, his idiotic electrification programme and his punative tax regime.
We are on a downward slope of hydrocarbon usage.
At some point, the usage of hydrocarbons on a day to day basis - whether imported use or direct will balance production in the North Sea.
By this I mean that the pharmaceuticals we use, plastics, gas for heating etc whether from abroad or made here will sum up to a certain amount of hydrocarbon usage. And North Sea is the other side of the balance.
At that point we will be relatively energy independent - if oil and gas prices rise, imports may cost more, but the government more in tax from the North Sea.
Anyone done projections on when/if that is going to happen?
If it is any equivalence, men have to assume that when out and about, they are at risk from a stranger who takes the "Did you spill my pint?" route to random violence. Yes it happens - but can we really let that govern our social interactions? You'd like to think that a mixed group of friends would be somewhere the defences might not have to be up all the time. That would be dependent on any indiscrations from a member of that group being made known and punished within the group and if necessary, with the police. I would want to think I would support any women who alleged this, even if it was a she said/he said where the he was a friend. But this also requires women to overcome the reluctance - stigma? - of letting the group know of any such sexual overstepping. How else can we know?
PLC: 29% (-1)
RFM: 27% (-2)
CON: 13% (+1)
GRN: 11% (+2)
LAB: 10% (-2)
LDM: 6% (-1)
Via
@FindoutnowUK
, 19-22 Apr.
Changes w/ 16 Dec - 4 Jan.
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2047659566326845805?s=20
Mind, the only time I've been to Barnsley I got totally drenched standing on an open terrace watching The Toon getting thumped 4-0.
Highlight of the day was when some lads climbed through the window of the pub I was in to get a pint before the match after the doors had been shut because it was too full.
Not the bonkers right Reform
Not the left Labour.
Not the bonkers left Greens.
We LibDems are happy here in the middle of the road - being mown down by traffic....
PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!
I don't know how you'd test the counterfactual, nor refute it as you are doing. But happy to stand corrected as I'm sure you know more.
The market for oil and gas is global; our renewables policies affect no one very much apart from us.
The largest effect from discouraging UK oil and gas production is to our balance of payments and exchequer.
Solar has soared in installation, because it is cheaper than gas and getting cheaper each year. North Sea production doesn’t really affect the world market for gas, so the price is pretty much independent of that.
So solar would be smashing it in either case.
This photo should be on the front page of every single newspaper in America today.
https://x.com/joncoopertweets/status/2047669617292665297
https://x.com/pepel_klaasa/status/2047379195827744784
The US narrative is that Kharg island fills up by next weekend, leaving Iran nowhere to store the stuff, so they have to start shutting down production in a way that could be permanent.
Agreed on the oil; I was lazily assuming this was a discussion mainly about gas given we are currently quite reliant on it for electricity but looking back at the comment Richard replied to I see oil and gas were conflated. I entirely agree that oil and renewables are not really related.
On the gas point, I agree with you both in a perfect market. But I wonder about the practical implications in the market as it is. If gas becomes relatively costlier/harder to extract in the UK, to what extent are companies who would like to extract it choosing to reduce their presence in the UK electricity market overall, and to what extent are they transferring investment decisions into renewables? And what would this trend look like in the longer term?
I genuinely don't know, but interested if others have figures on this.
Summer's day here.
New field scoming inline rae not going to change that substantially.
They have no generating capacity themselves.
The generating companies buy gas at the world market price.
The U.K. production, in any event, is not big enough to shift world prices (the U.K. benefit is taxes and jobs)
So U.K. production of gas would have next to no effect on the decision of the generating companies to buy more solar.
Right now the exodus to the Greens is saying "get Starmer out and be more left wing" and the exodus to Reform in part is "get Starmer out and tackle immigration".
These people having voted Labour in 2024, are at least Labour-flirting.
Can I generalise from this experience?
Well, with one exception art and part those convicted were all male.
The overwhelming feature is selfishness. Sex is what they want to do when and how they want to do it. They have no interest in whether their partner enjoys it, hates it or is bored.
Drink and drugs often act as disinhibitors.
Violence, actual or implied is commonplace but not universal. A surprising ( to me anyway) number of men seem to enjoy sex with a woman who is unconscious.
The majority are stupid, ill educated and boorish but there are exceptions.
Sex seems all too often a way of dominating in an abusive relationship. It is a way of humiliating and grinding down the women. A lot of it is about power rather than pleasure.
Nothing terribly original I’m afraid but I can certainly understand where @Cyclefree is coming from. The world is not what the majority would wish it to be.
The Tories will get closer to 30% as soon as we get to the election. And unless Burnham truly fucks up, so will Labour.
An alternative narrative might be that a company is aiming to invest £X million in the UK to gain market share in energy production, and sees renewable investment as relatively more attractive than bringing a new gas field into the market because of the restrictions on North Sea gas extraction? I'm just not sure that companies are as nimble with their investment decisions as you are suggesting, at least in the short-term.
I'm not necessarily advocating this because (a) I don't know if it is how actual companies in this market are likely to behave and (b) it has significant downside risks, especially on longer-term investment decisions.
I am, though, questioning the idea that we know that the restrictions on North Sea extraction have no impact on renewablea generation without more detailed insights and figures.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpqxrzr29pxo
And there is a serious risk it will be repeated at the next General Election
And yes, if Labour come FIFTH in Wales Starmer will be gone within a fortnight
At the time of the rape he was homeless, having been discharged from psychiatric care three days earlier without a support package after it was decided he was no longer psychotic.
If he weren't white, I am certain the mental health card would have been played.
Do you think the hardcore IRGC loons care either way ?
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4KLKn5Ik0MSBq3TnoCbonP?si=3Dr6ignMRJWYemOCGDzEsw&pi=wJuCW0ymQ2i3H&t=0
What about investment in future generation though?
I can accept that the practical.answer may be that they just invest elsewhere in the world. But I am interested in whether we have figures to say that this is actually happening, rather than that the generating companies are switching investments towards renewable capacity in the UK.
I take the point also about solar being so cheap, but then prima facie does that not making switching investments rather than removing them from UK more attractive?
Apologies if I'm being dense!
Counter-factuals are really hard. Since 2016, when Britain voted to the Leave the EU, we've had a pandemic, a Boriswave, and war in Ukraine.
We might have performed better in the EU. We might have performed worse. It's very hard to know for sure, because the biggest deteriminant of economic success are either (a) factors completely out of your control (see above), or (b) driven by domestic policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kapyong
One of the crucial battles of the war.
The British contingent did not cover themselves in glory, on this occasion (though they very much did in other battles):
...As darkness descended on 24 April, Burke decided not to utilize radio contacts with 2 PPCLI headquarters on the summit of Hill 677. Burke ordered a Dakota aircraft equipped with loudspeakers and personally flew over the 2 PPCLI positions on Hill 677.[92] He announced to the soldiers below that they were now on their own, cut off from any support and would have to fight the coming battle alone. He wished them good luck and encouraged them to fight bravely. He then flew back to Brigade HQ, amidst derisive response from the unsettled soldiers. Burke's brief appearance over the battlefield served to cause further apprehension among the 2 PPCLI.[92] Many of the less experienced 2 PPCLI soldiers voiced a desire to run and abandon the position. Veteran war hero Tommy Prince played a central role in steadying and motivating the frightened men.[92] Stone and 2 PPCLI could no longer expect that 27th Brigade HQ forces would continue to engage the enemy or would assemble a relief column to break through the PVA stranglehold on the supply road at Tungmudae. Stone was never in any doubt as to the essential strategic significance of Hill 677 for the UN forces and he issued a straightforward order to his battalion on the battalion radio sets, "We're surrounded. We'll hold this position until we're relieved." "No retreat, no surrender."..
Brigadier Burke was removed from command after the battle; the Canadian Stone was awarded a DSO.
Spend more money and raise taxes even more?
And even if he does that, how quickly will anyone notice anything?
In practice he can't even change any tax rates until 6 April 2027.
Politics is getting like football managers - people are flailing about, wanting something done when there is very little that can be done.
Even my wife who is absolutely a non-gamer sat down and watched me play and cried at a few points and then was in tears again at the end.
It's an absolute must play. Seriously it's probably in my top 5 games of all time.
It has made us more divided and tribal
It has lowered the standard of our political leaders and weakened our international partnerships
The economic counter factuals really don't matter as however many formulas you put into the model, however much research you put into the inputs, it doesn't make the models true and won't convince diehards (or indeed reasonable peeps) on the other side.
Counter-factuals are counter-factual.
It's only an energy source for god sake. We are replacing it hand over fist.
Oil and gas are used for much more than just energy.
Natural gas is used to make nitrogen fertilizer, without which we would all starve.
While oil is used in plastics, road surfaces, pharmaceuticals, and much more.
New Thread
NEW THREAD
https://www.bmwgroup-werke.com/spartanburg/en.html
And some Hyundai and Kia cars are built in America.
Two points about these plants that some will find awkward: The states where these plants are located generally vote Republican. The plants are non-union. (I think there is one recent exception.)
(I use "make" and "built" deliberately, rather than "manufactured", since nearly all modern cars have parts from other nations, regardless of where they are finally assembled.)