The Republican members of Congress are equally unfit for office, lacking a single spine between them. So Trump stays in office.
When the final reckoning comes, it will be the Republicans who failed to impeach him in 2021 after his failure to acknowledge that he lost the election and the subsequent attack on the Capitol who will be seen as most culpable.
The Republican members of Congress are equally unfit for office, lacking a single spine between them. So Trump stays in office.
When the final reckoning comes, it will be the Republicans who failed to impeach him in 2021 after his failure to acknowledge that he lost the election and the subsequent attack on the Capitol who will be seen as most culpable.
They thought he was done, and so took the easy path out. Now those who feared the mob Trump incited still meekly bow before the king. Even those who are not sticking around don't even bother to criticise him, that's how powerful he is.
Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.
I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.
Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.
It's not passing the House in its current form.
That is up to MPs.
They voted for it last year. They should again.
You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.
Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.
The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.
But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.
But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.
The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
Nope. I am in favour of assisted dying - very strongly. But this bill was, please excuse the term, an abortion.
If you listen to some of the Lords ex[plaining their objections you realise just how bad this bill was as it was presented to the Lords.
For a start, being a Private Members Bill, it had none of the usual research and support work done in advance - green and white papers, proper consultations etc. It was brought to the Commons as a half arsed emotionally based attempt to get ssisted dying rather than a proper formulated plan for end of life care indcluiding an option for assisted dying.
Then after it passed its second reading in the Commons it was changed with key protections being removed. This is not the same bill the Commons voted on, even before the Lords had had a chance to look at it.
It stands as the largest and most complex private members bill ever put before the Lords and it needed proper scrutiny. All he more so because all the work which would normally be done in advance of a Government bill was missing.
What we need is for a Government to do the right thing and introduce a proper bill which has been properly planned and reseached. Not some half arsed bit of legislation that relies on emotional blackmail to get it through.
In the film La Grazia the character playing the President of Italy has to decide whether to put a euthanasia bill into law: "If I sign I'm a murderer. If I don't sign I'm a torturer. What do I do?" Which sums up my views on assisted dying.
Nevertheless that the Bill was talked out through 1285 amendments tabled by Members of the Lords who lack the moral courage to oppose the Bill on principle is one of the most despicable acts of that not particularly august chamber.
Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.
I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.
Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.
It's not passing the House in its current form.
That is up to MPs.
They voted for it last year. They should again.
You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.
Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.
The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.
But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.
But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.
The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
We all know that the people who are opposed are actually opposed on moral / religious grounds.
Nobody who was opposed said: "I will switch to supporting it with certain specified safeguards".
Instead they played a clever game - raising endless issues when really they were just flat out opposed whatever the safeguards.
I actually think the proposers missed a trick:
It became stand practice for TV presenters to say "this is a very difficult, complex issue ......"
They should have been confronted with the answer: "No, it's not difficult. It's very simple. People should have the right to decide their own lives." Saying it was difficult / complex was pandering to the objectors and gave credibility to their objections.
Next time the response should be: "What safeguards do you want?"
As we saw with a famous poster on this site, when confronted they went round in circles for a while but ultimately admitted they wouldn't agree to it under any circumstances, even if they themselves could draw up the safeguards.
It just needs sufficient controls to make it completely safe. Eg a diagnosis from 3 different doctors that you are 100% certain to die in the next 6 months, your own wish for an assisted passage recorded on film with the date verified by you holding up that day's newspaper, the video of this (together with the diagnoses) reviewed by a panel of experts comprised of a psychiatrist, a social worker, a senior police officer, and a moral philosopher, then assuming the green light one final step - a hearing at the Old Bailey in front of a judge and jury.
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.
I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.
Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.
It's not passing the House in its current form.
That is up to MPs.
They voted for it last year. They should again.
You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.
Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.
The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.
But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.
But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.
The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
Nope. I am in favour of assisted dying - very strongly. But this bill was, please excuse the term, an abortion.
If you listen to some of the Lords ex[plaining their objections you realise just how bad this bill was as it was presented to the Lords.
For a start, being a Private Members Bill, it had none of the usual research and support work done in advance - green and white papers, proper consultations etc. It was brought to the Commons as a half arsed emotionally based attempt to get ssisted dying rather than a proper formulated plan for end of life care indcluiding an option for assisted dying.
Then after it passed its second reading in the Commons it was changed with key protections being removed. This is not the same bill the Commons voted on, even before the Lords had had a chance to look at it.
It stands as the largest and most complex private members bill ever put before the Lords and it needed proper scrutiny. All he more so because all the work which would normally be done in advance of a Government bill was missing.
What we need is for a Government to do the right thing and introduce a proper bill which has been properly planned and reseached. Not some half arsed bit of legislation that relies on emotional blackmail to get it through.
In the film La Grazia the character playing the President of Italy has to decide whether to put a euthanasia bill into law: "If I sign I'm a murderer. If I don't sign I'm a torturer. What do I do?" Which sums up my views on assisted dying.
Nevertheless that the Bill was talked out through 1285 amendments tabled by Members of the Lords who lack the moral courage to oppose the Bill on principle is one of the most despicable acts of that not particularly august chamber.
They clearly sabotaged the bill by tabling spurious amendments. And the fact it was 7 peers alone that accounted for half of those is shameful.
FPT: 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.)
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?
Apologies if I'm being dense!
The oil and gas producing companies are investing in oil and gas elsewhere. Norway for example. Or in shutting down the North Sea - lots of work in that. For a while.
Solar, in the U.K., is limited by planning. There is more money chasing projects that can happen.
Perhaps the bit you are missing is that oil (in particular) is required to make a lot of things. This is the long tail of net zero.
Okay, probably of interest only to me by this stage, but I did some digging to find some figures.
I recognise I may be making some logical leaps and/or being a little credulous about Neo Next +'s intentions, but is this not evidence that one of the largest producers is shifting their investment rather than exiting the UK electricity market?
As to your point about oil, I think that's a separate discussion. I don't doubt the strategic importance, though I do doubt that with our current economic system we gain sovereignty by allowing a multinational to extract reserves within our geographic control.
Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.
I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.
Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.
The Lords was doing its job. You do know don't you that the peer who put down the most amendments was one of the Bill's sponsors, Lord Falconer, and these were all to weaken - yes, read that again - weaken the safeguards the Commons had voted for.
It failed because of the arrogance, stupidity and failure to listen to genuine concerns of its sponsors - and its appalling overreach. A bill to introduce something like what Switzerland has would likely have passed. A Bill which every single organisation from psychiatrists to care homes to palliative specialists to those knowledgeable about coercion to every single organisation representing the disabled to the former Head of the NHS said was unsafe and could not be supported is what doomed it. Rather than try to bully it through its proponents would do better to listen to the very genuine concerns and stop telling lies about what it means for the vulnerable.
There is a deep aversion to doing what other countries do in the heart of The Machine in this country.
See the reason why the U.K. pursued hydrogen peroxide for submarines (HMS Exploder and HMS Excruciator), torpedos, space launch and missiles. Long after the rest of the world decided that was insane.
The Republican members of Congress are equally unfit for office, lacking a single spine between them. So Trump stays in office.
When the final reckoning comes, it will be the Republicans who failed to impeach him in 2021 after his failure to acknowledge that he lost the election and the subsequent attack on the Capitol who will be seen as most culpable.
That is still being used as a litmus test question to prove Trump loyalty. If you want a top federal job you must NOT answer 'yes' to the question, did he lose the 2020 presidential election. It's sick.
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
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?
Apologies if I'm being dense!
The oil and gas producing companies are investing in oil and gas elsewhere. Norway for example. Or in shutting down the North Sea - lots of work in that. For a while.
Solar, in the U.K., is limited by planning. There is more money chasing projects that can happen.
Perhaps the bit you are missing is that oil (in particular) is required to make a lot of things. This is the long tail of net zero.
Okay, probably of interest only to me by this stage, but I did some digging to find some figures.
I recognise I may be making some logical leaps and/or being a little credulous about Neo Next +'s intentions, but is this not evidence that one of the largest producers is shifting their investment rather than exiting the UK electricity market?
As to your point about oil, I think that's a separate discussion. I don't doubt the strategic importance, though I do doubt that with our current economic system we gain sovereignty by allowing a multinational to extract reserves within our geographic control.
That’s a subsidiary of Total. All the majors have a green energy division.
On North Sea and control -
If their physical operations are within the U.K., they are subject to UK law. The lease grants in the North Sea include provision for revocation under various circumstances.
So if a multinational decides to play games in the North Sea, they face sanction up to losing their license.
Also, the majors are very careful about local law (yes, funny given the history) - countries round the world watch them. No one wants, these days, the reputation of being politically difficult to the resource country.
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.
Nah. Trump is talking out of his behind. You can keep wells shut in for years. If those wells are onshore then you can keep them shut in for decades. You lose nothing except a bit of cost from having someone monitor them every few months to make sure they are not leaking.
It only becomes an issue when you want to permanently abandon them and they are 300 ft below the surface of the North Sea * Then you have to do a proper abandonment based on the highest possible recharge pressures over several thousand years. That means pulling casings, setting cement plugs and eventually cutting off wellheads and removing any infrastructure above the seabed. That is when it becomes irreversable.
Nothing Trump is doing will reduce Iranian oil reserves or cost them anything beyond the immediate issue of being unable to sell their oil.
*other seas and other depths are available.
While I hate to disagree with you, it's not quite true re onshore production.
Reservoirs can -and do- become damaged by being shut in. For example, if it's a clay formation and they are using water injection to maintain pressures (as I'm pretty sure most Iranian wells will be) then if you stop producing, then the water in the well will end up being absorbed by clays, swelling it and causing the pores to close.
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.
I find your final sentence incredibly disconcerting. A rapist bastard is a rapist bastard whatever their colour. No excuses and no pulling the "he got it tougher because he was white" please.
I agree that the highlighted comment is bizarre and more than concerning, as well as imo being casually racist.
It is a job of any competent defence lawyer to make sure that mental state and conditions be considered, and any expert witness and judge to make sure that it is done objectively.
When Robert Jenrick was stirring about Sentencing Guidelines (that he had been taking through Government as Minister iirc), one of the things he was saying on Facebook (he used different comparator groups on different platforms) was that the suggestion that sentencing reports usually be necessary for disabled defendants meant that it was 2 tier justice.
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
We have quite a strong defence plan down there - I have an acquaintance who was senior in the army who was sent down there many years ago to refresh it and it’s done constantly. I believe 2 Para are there at the moment and there is an array of kit which would make an invasion extremely painful . It’s not a sitting duck by any means.
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
We have quite a strong defence plan down there - I have an acquaintance who was senior in the army who was sent down there many years ago to refresh it and it’s done constantly. I believe 2 Para are there at the moment and there is an array of kit which would make an invasion extremely painful . It’s not a sitting duck by any means.
The Argentine military is in a state of collapse, as well.
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
We have quite a strong defence plan down there - I have an acquaintance who was senior in the army who was sent down there many years ago to refresh it and it’s done constantly. I believe 2 Para are there at the moment and there is an array of kit which would make an invasion extremely painful . It’s not a sitting duck by any means.
The problem is the distance to service any military defence, and whilst a token force is there, it would have a problem if the Argentine naval and air forces made a determined attempt to capture it
I would just say I think it is highly unlikely and just Trump sounding off
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.
I find your final sentence incredibly disconcerting. A rapist bastard is a rapist bastard whatever their colour. No excuses and no pulling the "he got it tougher because he was white" please.
No, I couldn't give a toss about the fate of the junkie. But you only have to look at Nottingham to see how we treat perpetrators who are not white.
I don't believe I have defended AR or the **** in Nottingham because they are not white.
I am fascinated that over the last few days some posters have been keen to post stories about disgusting immigrant criminality and getting substantial likes for doing so, but this one? Not so much.
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.
I find your final sentence incredibly disconcerting. A rapist bastard is a rapist bastard whatever their colour. No excuses and no pulling the "he got it tougher because he was white" please.
I agree that the highlighted comment is bizarre and more than concerning, as well as imo being casually racist.
It is a job of any competent defence lawyer to make sure that mental state and conditions be considered, and any expert witness and judge to make sure that it is done objectively.
When Robert Jenrick was stirring about Sentencing Guidelines (that he had been taking through Government as Minister iirc), one of the things he was saying on Facebook (he used different comparator groups on different platforms) was that the suggestion that sentencing reports usually be necessary for disabled defendants meant that it was 2 tier justice.
I'd also note that the sentencing remarks already published show that the "Mental health Card" was indeedplayed by teh defence lawyer, and considered by the Judge.:
25. In mitigation, your barristers argue that the medical evidence is highly relevant to culpability. They argue that you had significant neurodevelopmental and mental health difficulties, marked impulsivity and reduced emotional regulation all of which materially contributed to the commission of these offences.
26. I do not agree, and - in fairness - in her oral submissions, Ms Heeley KC accepted that the medical evidence provided context for your offending rather than any real mitigation. In my judgment, your autism was characterised by deficits in social communication and there is no formal evidence of ADHD. In any event, any such neurodevelopmental disorders do not even start to explain these offences. Your personality traits might explain why you lost your temper when challenged in the unit, but provide no real mitigation for your deliberate and considered actions in breaking into a house in order to commit rape. That said, I accept that your personality may explain your lack of empathy.
To be fair, none of the party groups think it's that good an idea. And Reform voters continue to strongly oppose any idea that doesn't involve Nigel being made our God-Emperor.
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
We have quite a strong defence plan down there - I have an acquaintance who was senior in the army who was sent down there many years ago to refresh it and it’s done constantly. I believe 2 Para are there at the moment and there is an array of kit which would make an invasion extremely painful . It’s not a sitting duck by any means.
Of course the US could 'take' the Falklands with some sort of Operation Billy Fury but this is one of those Donald Trump trolling inanities best ignored. Long list.
Some of Sir Keir Starmer’s Cabinet are in secret discussions about the best time to tell the Prime Minister to quit and who should deliver the message, @theipaper can reveal
But what about the following the correct process in full.....while ensuring nothing hit his desk.
As we found out this past week or so Starmer and #10 don't read the i, so no danger of him finding out about this plot.
Shirley the way to do it, is to change the Labour Party constitution, and then change PM without telling Starmer?
That way he can be very, very angry when finally notified *at* PMQs
Jonathan Pie bloke was on some podcast a new months back and second hand talking to people in #10, Starmer is apparently quite an odd bod. Sits in his office, virtually never comes out and talks to anybody, makes it clear no problems only solution are brought to him. He basically has 2 conversation topics, minute of the law and football. Even Sunak apparently would leave his spreadsheets from time to time and come out and chat to the staff about how things are going.
Starmer has been an incredible disappointment even to those of us who hoped he would try turning the Titanic around rather than keep on course for the heart of the iceberg.
A massive wasted opportunity.
Being serious for a moment, I think a big problem for Starmer is that the wider team are very poor. Cameron delegated loads but had much more capable people in senior positions. And if you remember Cameron famously had the quad that made lots of decisions, Danny Alexander in particular was extremely well regarded for being able to get stuff done without dropping a massive bollock.
I don't believe there is a distinct lack of talent on the Labour benches. Unfortunately the key figures in the Starmer Government have been hand picked to be as ineffective as Starmer by Starmer.
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?
Apologies if I'm being dense!
The oil and gas producing companies are investing in oil and gas elsewhere. Norway for example. Or in shutting down the North Sea - lots of work in that. For a while.
Solar, in the U.K., is limited by planning. There is more money chasing projects that can happen.
Perhaps the bit you are missing is that oil (in particular) is required to make a lot of things. This is the long tail of net zero.
Okay, probably of interest only to me by this stage, but I did some digging to find some figures.
I recognise I may be making some logical leaps and/or being a little credulous about Neo Next +'s intentions, but is this not evidence that one of the largest producers is shifting their investment rather than exiting the UK electricity market?
As to your point about oil, I think that's a separate discussion. I don't doubt the strategic importance, though I do doubt that with our current economic system we gain sovereignty by allowing a multinational to extract reserves within our geographic control.
That’s a subsidiary of Total. All the majors have a green energy division.
On North Sea and control -
If their physical operations are within the U.K., they are subject to UK law. The lease grants in the North Sea include provision for revocation under various circumstances.
So if a multinational decides to play games in the North Sea, they face sanction up to losing their license.
Also, the majors are very careful about local law (yes, funny given the history) - countries round the world watch them. No one wants, these days, the reputation of being politically difficult to the resource country.
You're making my point for me, I think. The same company that would extract gas if it could is seeking another way to maintain its presence in the UK electricity market and sees that the opportunity is through renewables investment. It *appears* that our North Sea policies are prompting investment in renewables, contra Richard's point that I was querying.
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
We have quite a strong defence plan down there - I have an acquaintance who was senior in the army who was sent down there many years ago to refresh it and it’s done constantly. I believe 2 Para are there at the moment and there is an array of kit which would make an invasion extremely painful . It’s not a sitting duck by any means.
Of course the US could 'take' the Falklands with some sort of Operation Billy Fury but this is one of those Donald Trump trolling inanities best ignored. Long list.
It’s time that we treated the USA as an enemy. It’s ridiculous that the King is visiting Trump. We should publicly cancel his visit and tell the USA that he won’t be visiting until Trump is no longer President.
Ed Miliband somehow ends up as PM in a coronation .
He does get a bounce because he’s not Starmer .
Labour MPs then delude themselves into thinking okay he might have been a failure last time but you never know he’s doing okay in the polls now and we can’t seriously change leader again .
They go into the next election with him and get eviscerated .
Ed Miliband somehow ends up as PM in a coronation .
He does get a bounce because he’s not Starmer .
Labour MPs then delude themselves into thinking okay he might have been a failure last time but you never know he’s doing okay in the polls now and we can’t seriously change leader again .
They go into the next election with him and get eviscerated .
Nah, they have to stick with any replacement. Only one mulligan per term, otherwise its just not golf.
Possibly not according to your boy Trump. Apparently it's a tit-for-tat for Starmer treason for not joining the Iran War.
Vain gullible Donald didn't do the work of building support for his Iran war. He just kind of did it because Netanyahu told him it would be quick and he'd be a hero for the ages. Forget about what a ghastly human being he is, there has never been a US president so out of his depth in the job.
Ed Miliband somehow ends up as PM in a coronation .
He does get a bounce because he’s not Starmer .
Labour MPs then delude themselves into thinking okay he might have been a failure last time but you never know he’s doing okay in the polls now and we can’t seriously change leader again .
They go into the next election with him and get eviscerated .
I can't see a coronation of Ed M much as I like him. There are too many ambitious cabinet members and he's not an obvious successor in the way Gordon Brown was. And I don't think MPs will want to coronate a man.
Ed Miliband somehow ends up as PM in a coronation .
He does get a bounce because he’s not Starmer .
Labour MPs then delude themselves into thinking okay he might have been a failure last time but you never know he’s doing okay in the polls now and we can’t seriously change leader again .
They go into the next election with him and get eviscerated .
Has the man no shame. The man is a f*****' idiot. Of all the touted names Milliband is head and shoulders the most ridiculous.
Ed Miliband somehow ends up as PM in a coronation .
He does get a bounce because he’s not Starmer .
Labour MPs then delude themselves into thinking okay he might have been a failure last time but you never know he’s doing okay in the polls now and we can’t seriously change leader again .
They go into the next election with him and get eviscerated .
Nah, they have to stick with any replacement. Only one mulligan per term, otherwise its just not golf.
Talking of golf, apparently the Trumpster is charging £1000 a round fo Turnberry.
Classic. It always starts with reluctance when it comes to Putin, then next thing you know you find yourself like Farage trying to justify why parroting Kremlin talking points blaming the EU for the war in Ukraine do not mean you are on his side.
(He claimed the EU provided a pretext, but that was obviously a later excuse he came up with, since if it was a pretext then by definition it was not the EU's fault).
Possibly not according to your boy Trump. Apparently it's a tit-for-tat for Starmer treason for not joining the Iran War.
Vain gullible Donald didn't do the work of building support for his Iran war. He just kind of did it because Netanyahu told him it would be quick and he'd be a hero for the ages. Forget about what a ghastly human being he is, there has never been a US president so out of his depth in the job.
I suspect it is more concerning than that, a New York, concrete boots in the Hudson style, hood has been elected Leader of the Free World.
Al Capone or John Dillinger would probably have been sounder choices.
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.
The fightback begins.
OGH was one of the founder members of CAMRA.
Isn't that great? PB.com AND CAMRA. A match made in Heaven. Or indeed a match made in a pub with an unusually well informed clientele!
Ed Miliband somehow ends up as PM in a coronation .
He does get a bounce because he’s not Starmer .
Labour MPs then delude themselves into thinking okay he might have been a failure last time but you never know he’s doing okay in the polls now and we can’t seriously change leader again .
They go into the next election with him and get eviscerated .
Nah, they have to stick with any replacement. Only one mulligan per term, otherwise its just not golf.
Talking of golf, apparently the Trumpster is charging £1000 a round fo Turnberry.
Thank goodness there are no other Ayrshire golf courses to offer an alternative.
Ed Miliband somehow ends up as PM in a coronation .
He does get a bounce because he’s not Starmer .
Labour MPs then delude themselves into thinking okay he might have been a failure last time but you never know he’s doing okay in the polls now and we can’t seriously change leader again .
They go into the next election with him and get eviscerated .
Nah, they have to stick with any replacement. Only one mulligan per term, otherwise its just not golf.
Talking of golf, apparently the Trumpster is charging £1000 a round fo Turnberry.
And 2028 is going to Lytham, apparently. Shame, it would have been the BIGGEST and BEST Open EVER if it had gone to Turnberry.
Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.
I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.
Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.
Yes - the mass of amendments have been done by a very small number of people. One or two I can understand, because they are within groups who could suffer badly on the wrong end of a bad process, but some I have concerns about.
There were 1200+ amendments put forwards. At the point when there were around 900, these were the scores on the doors:
Seven of the most vocal opponents to the Bill have put forward 617 amendments between them:
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff 169 Baroness Grey-Thompson 131 Lord Carlile of Berriew 72 Baroness Coffey 72 Lord Sandhurst 68 Lord Goodman of Wycombe 59 Lord Moylan 46
That does seem like an awful lot, and there were surely obstructionist amendments put up, but Baroness Finlay is an expert on palliative medicine, it doesn't seem surprising she would have a lot of very detailed thoughts about precise drafting.
And baroness grey-Thompson is a wheelchair user focused on protection of disabled people and the most vulnerable in society. You’d imagine she’d have thoughtful perspectives as well
Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.
I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.
Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.
It's not passing the House in its current form.
That is up to MPs.
They voted for it last year. They should again.
You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.
Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.
The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.
But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.
But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.
The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
We all know that the people who are opposed are actually opposed on moral / religious grounds.
Nobody who was opposed said: "I will switch to supporting it with certain specified safeguards".
Instead they played a clever game - raising endless issues when really they were just flat out opposed whatever the safeguards.
I actually think the proposers missed a trick:
It became stand practice for TV presenters to say "this is a very difficult, complex issue ......"
They should have been confronted with the answer: "No, it's not difficult. It's very simple. People should have the right to decide their own lives." Saying it was difficult / complex was pandering to the objectors and gave credibility to their objections.
Next time the response should be: "What safeguards do you want?"
As we saw with a famous poster on this site, when confronted they went round in circles for a while but ultimately admitted they wouldn't agree to it under any circumstances, even if they themselves could draw up the safeguards.
I am reminded of the lengthy negotiations that happened before the 1967 Abortion Act — both my parents were involved — where the reformers talked to different groups who were on the fence, listened to concerns, came up with appropriate safeguards, until they knew they had a majority. (Others were diehard opponents and there was no point trying to offer them anything,) The result was an Act that, from today’s perspective, seems overly stuffed with precautions, but which got passed at the time.
Possibly not according to your boy Trump. Apparently it's a tit-for-tat for Starmer treason for not joining the Iran War.
Vain gullible Donald didn't do the work of building support for his Iran war. He just kind of did it because Netanyahu told him it would be quick and he'd be a hero for the ages. Forget about what a ghastly human being he is, there has never been a US president so out of his depth in the job.
I suspect it is more concerning than that, a New York, concrete boots in the Hudson style, hood has been elected Leader of the Free World.
Al Capone or John Dillinger would probably have been sounder choices.
They'd have been more competent for sure. You've got the full house with Trump - mad bad venal and stupid. America giving him the keys again in 2024 is going to be one of the most analysed disasters in history.
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
We have quite a strong defence plan down there - I have an acquaintance who was senior in the army who was sent down there many years ago to refresh it and it’s done constantly. I believe 2 Para are there at the moment and there is an array of kit which would make an invasion extremely painful . It’s not a sitting duck by any means.
Of course the US could 'take' the Falklands with some sort of Operation Billy Fury but this is one of those Donald Trump trolling inanities best ignored. Long list.
It’s time that we treated the USA as an enemy. It’s ridiculous that the King is visiting Trump. We should publicly cancel his visit and tell the USA that he won’t be visiting until Trump is no longer President.
No, let the King visit the US, but explain that he won’t be meeting with anyone guilty of sexual assault.
Ed Miliband somehow ends up as PM in a coronation .
He does get a bounce because he’s not Starmer .
Labour MPs then delude themselves into thinking okay he might have been a failure last time but you never know he’s doing okay in the polls now and we can’t seriously change leader again .
They go into the next election with him and get eviscerated .
Nah, they have to stick with any replacement. Only one mulligan per term, otherwise its just not golf.
Talking of golf, apparently the Trumpster is charging £1000 a round fo Turnberry.
I'd need to be paid £1,000 a round to play at any of his courses, especially during a war when he might be hiding down in the bunker.
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
Pathetic wimpery, thank goodness we had Thatcher leading the victorious 1982 Falklands War not you.
We have more aircraft carriers than Argentina, more destroyers, more soldiers and more submarines m, some with nuclear weapons unlike Argentina.
Though Milei is not Galtieri and only interested in a diplomatic solution
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
We have quite a strong defence plan down there - I have an acquaintance who was senior in the army who was sent down there many years ago to refresh it and it’s done constantly. I believe 2 Para are there at the moment and there is an array of kit which would make an invasion extremely painful . It’s not a sitting duck by any means.
Of course the US could 'take' the Falklands with some sort of Operation Billy Fury but this is one of those Donald Trump trolling inanities best ignored. Long list.
It’s time that we treated the USA as an enemy. It’s ridiculous that the King is visiting Trump. We should publicly cancel his visit and tell the USA that he won’t be visiting until Trump is no longer President.
No, let the King visit the US, but explain that he won’t be meeting with anyone guilty of sexual assault.
Better cancel Andrew's passport then, just to be safe.
Possibly not according to your boy Trump. Apparently it's a tit-for-tat for Starmer treason for not joining the Iran War.
Vain gullible Donald didn't do the work of building support for his Iran war. He just kind of did it because Netanyahu told him it would be quick and he'd be a hero for the ages. Forget about what a ghastly human being he is, there has never been a US president so out of his depth in the job.
I suspect it is more concerning than that, a New York, concrete boots in the Hudson style, hood has been elected Leader of the Free World.
Al Capone or John Dillinger would probably have been sounder choices.
Ironic that he appointed J Edgar Boozer to run the FBI.
If Ed Miliband becomes Prime Minister I promise to apologise to all PB remainers and PB lefties for saying no one should ever feel ashamed to be British.
Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.
I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.
Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.
Yes - the mass of amendments have been done by a very small number of people. One or two I can understand, because they are within groups who could suffer badly on the wrong end of a bad process, but some I have concerns about.
There were 1200+ amendments put forwards. At the point when there were around 900, these were the scores on the doors:
Seven of the most vocal opponents to the Bill have put forward 617 amendments between them:
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff 169 Baroness Grey-Thompson 131 Lord Carlile of Berriew 72 Baroness Coffey 72 Lord Sandhurst 68 Lord Goodman of Wycombe 59 Lord Moylan 46
That does seem like an awful lot, and there were surely obstructionist amendments put up, but Baroness Finlay is an expert on palliative medicine, it doesn't seem surprising she would have a lot of very detailed thoughts about precise drafting.
And baroness grey-Thompson is a wheelchair user focused on protection of disabled people and the most vulnerable in society. You’d imagine she’d have thoughtful perspectives as well
Unless a disabled person only had 6 months to live her arguments were a total red herring. Nobody was ever going to be able pressurise a disabled person into dying against their will under the proposed legislation.
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
Pathetic wimpery, thank goodness we had Thatcher leading the victorious 1982 Falklands War not you.
We have more aircraft carriers than Argentina, more destroyers, more soldiers and more submarines m, some with nuclear weapons unlike Argentina.
Though Milei is not Galtieri and only interested in a diplomatic solution
You are utterly deluded
Thatcher's time is a distant memory and utterly impossible today
Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.
I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.
Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.
Yes - the mass of amendments have been done by a very small number of people. One or two I can understand, because they are within groups who could suffer badly on the wrong end of a bad process, but some I have concerns about.
There were 1200+ amendments put forwards. At the point when there were around 900, these were the scores on the doors:
Seven of the most vocal opponents to the Bill have put forward 617 amendments between them:
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff 169 Baroness Grey-Thompson 131 Lord Carlile of Berriew 72 Baroness Coffey 72 Lord Sandhurst 68 Lord Goodman of Wycombe 59 Lord Moylan 46
That does seem like an awful lot, and there were surely obstructionist amendments put up, but Baroness Finlay is an expert on palliative medicine, it doesn't seem surprising she would have a lot of very detailed thoughts about precise drafting.
And baroness grey-Thompson is a wheelchair user focused on protection of disabled people and the most vulnerable in society. You’d imagine she’d have thoughtful perspectives as well
Unless a disabled person only had 6 months to live her arguments were a total red herring. Nobody was ever going to be able pressurise a disabled person into dying against their will under the proposed legislation.
I’ve no idea what her amendments were.
The point is that if someone is acting as the focal point of an interested party then criticism them because of the number of amendments is pretty feeble
Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.
I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.
Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.
It's not passing the House in its current form.
That is up to MPs.
They voted for it last year. They should again.
You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.
Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.
The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.
But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.
But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.
The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
We all know that the people who are opposed are actually opposed on moral / religious grounds.
Nobody who was opposed said: "I will switch to supporting it with certain specified safeguards".
Instead they played a clever game - raising endless issues when really they were just flat out opposed whatever the safeguards.
I actually think the proposers missed a trick:
It became stand practice for TV presenters to say "this is a very difficult, complex issue ......"
They should have been confronted with the answer: "No, it's not difficult. It's very simple. People should have the right to decide their own lives." Saying it was difficult / complex was pandering to the objectors and gave credibility to their objections.
Next time the response should be: "What safeguards do you want?"
As we saw with a famous poster on this site, when confronted they went round in circles for a while but ultimately admitted they wouldn't agree to it under any circumstances, even if they themselves could draw up the safeguards.
I am reminded of the lengthy negotiations that happened before the 1967 Abortion Act — both my parents were involved — where the reformers talked to different groups who were on the fence, listened to concerns, came up with appropriate safeguards, until they knew they had a majority. (Others were diehard opponents and there was no point trying to offer them anything,) The result was an Act that, from today’s perspective, seems overly stuffed with precautions, but which got passed at the time.
Two points I'd make on this.
It's a balance. You must have safeguards. But you must also appreciate that building in sufficient safeguards to make it 100% impermeable to abuse renders it so restrictive as be useless in practice.
AD is in place in several other countries. So there is no need to approach it as some sort of leap into the unknown. There's nothing special about us in this regard. Same people, same issues.
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.
I find your final sentence incredibly disconcerting. A rapist bastard is a rapist bastard whatever their colour. No excuses and no pulling the "he got it tougher because he was white" please.
No, I couldn't give a toss about the fate of the junkie. But you only have to look at Nottingham to see how we treat perpetrators who are not white.
I don't believe I have defended AR or the **** in Nottingham because they are not white.
I am fascinated that over the last few days some posters have been keen to post stories about disgusting immigrant criminality and getting substantial likes for doing so, but this one? Not so much.
Unless you are a complete moron, I find it hard to see the fascination. Rape is a disgusting crime that should be severely punished no matter the perpetrator. But if the perpetrator(s) are people who have entered the country illegally on a small boat, that makes it more the establishment's fault than when the rapist is someone who was born here. When people, including me obviously, post these stories of illegal immigrants raping women, it isn't because we think it is bad when they do it but ok when others do, it is to illustrate that letting these people in and putting them up in little villages is madness, and the government should be doing more to stop it. It is the establishment that is being criticised, that rape is an horrific crime goes without saying
People, including myself, also post when a man pretending to be a woman sexually assaults a real woman in prison. We don't post when men sexually assault other men in men's prisons, nor when women sexually assault women in women's prisons. That is not to say those assaults aren't bad, although the man pretending to be a woman's assault on woman is worse as well as being the establishment's fault
Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.
I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.
Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.
It's not passing the House in its current form.
That is up to MPs.
They voted for it last year. They should again.
You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.
Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.
The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.
But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.
But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.
The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
Nope. I am in favour of assisted dying - very strongly. But this bill was, please excuse the term, an abortion.
If you listen to some of the Lords ex[plaining their objections you realise just how bad this bill was as it was presented to the Lords.
For a start, being a Private Members Bill, it had none of the usual research and support work done in advance - green and white papers, proper consultations etc. It was brought to the Commons as a half arsed emotionally based attempt to get ssisted dying rather than a proper formulated plan for end of life care indcluiding an option for assisted dying.
Then after it passed its second reading in the Commons it was changed with key protections being removed. This is not the same bill the Commons voted on, even before the Lords had had a chance to look at it.
It stands as the largest and most complex private members bill ever put before the Lords and it needed proper scrutiny. All he more so because all the work which would normally be done in advance of a Government bill was missing.
What we need is for a Government to do the right thing and introduce a proper bill which has been properly planned and reseached. Not some half arsed bit of legislation that relies on emotional blackmail to get it through.
In the film La Grazia the character playing the President of Italy has to decide whether to put a euthanasia bill into law: "If I sign I'm a murderer. If I don't sign I'm a torturer. What do I do?" Which sums up my views on assisted dying.
Nevertheless that the Bill was talked out through 1285 amendments tabled by Members of the Lords who lack the moral courage to oppose the Bill on principle is one of the most despicable acts of that not particularly august chamber.
They clearly sabotaged the bill by tabling spurious amendments. And the fact it was 7 peers alone that accounted for half of those is shameful.
Dig into their backgrounds and I expect most of them will prove to be religious nutters, more concerned about serving their imaginary sky fairy than doing anything meaningful to relieve suffering on earth.
Possibly not according to your boy Trump. Apparently it's a tit-for-tat for Starmer treason for not joining the Iran War.
Vain gullible Donald didn't do the work of building support for his Iran war. He just kind of did it because Netanyahu told him it would be quick and he'd be a hero for the ages. Forget about what a ghastly human being he is, there has never been a US president so out of his depth in the job.
I suspect it is more concerning than that, a New York, concrete boots in the Hudson style, hood has been elected Leader of the Free World.
Al Capone or John Dillinger would probably have been sounder choices.
Ironic that he appointed J Edgar Boozer to run the FBI.
Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.
I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.
Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.
It's not passing the House in its current form.
That is up to MPs.
They voted for it last year. They should again.
You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.
Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.
The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.
But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.
But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.
The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
Nope. I am in favour of assisted dying - very strongly. But this bill was, please excuse the term, an abortion.
If you listen to some of the Lords ex[plaining their objections you realise just how bad this bill was as it was presented to the Lords.
For a start, being a Private Members Bill, it had none of the usual research and support work done in advance - green and white papers, proper consultations etc. It was brought to the Commons as a half arsed emotionally based attempt to get ssisted dying rather than a proper formulated plan for end of life care indcluiding an option for assisted dying.
Then after it passed its second reading in the Commons it was changed with key protections being removed. This is not the same bill the Commons voted on, even before the Lords had had a chance to look at it.
It stands as the largest and most complex private members bill ever put before the Lords and it needed proper scrutiny. All he more so because all the work which would normally be done in advance of a Government bill was missing.
What we need is for a Government to do the right thing and introduce a proper bill which has been properly planned and reseached. Not some half arsed bit of legislation that relies on emotional blackmail to get it through.
In the film La Grazia the character playing the President of Italy has to decide whether to put a euthanasia bill into law: "If I sign I'm a murderer. If I don't sign I'm a torturer. What do I do?" Which sums up my views on assisted dying.
Nevertheless that the Bill was talked out through 1285 amendments tabled by Members of the Lords who lack the moral courage to oppose the Bill on principle is one of the most despicable acts of that not particularly august chamber.
They clearly sabotaged the bill by tabling spurious amendments. And the fact it was 7 peers alone that accounted for half of those is shameful.
Dig into their backgrounds and I expect most of them will prove to be religious nutters, more concerned about serving their imaginary sky fairy than doing anything meaningful to relieve suffering on earth.
Quite likely so, but there are legitimate concerns too.
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
Pathetic wimpery, thank goodness we had Thatcher leading the victorious 1982 Falklands War not you.
We have more aircraft carriers than Argentina, more destroyers, more soldiers and more submarines m, some with nuclear weapons unlike Argentina.
Though Milei is not Galtieri and only interested in a diplomatic solution
You are utterly deluded
Thatcher's time is a distant memory and utterly impossible today
Rubbish, the Argentine military is even weaker than 1982, the Falklands has a bigger British garrison. No British PM would ever survive losing the Falklands it would be a humiliation that made Suez look like a minor misunderstanding and Starmer, Farage and Badenoch know it.
Comments
Nevertheless that the Bill was talked out through 1285 amendments tabled by Members of the Lords who lack the moral courage to oppose the Bill on principle is one of the most despicable acts of that not particularly august chamber.
Ed Miliband is trying to “position himself for a coronation” to replace Keir Starmer after the local elections – reports @DavidPBMaddox
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.)
According to AI (I know, I know), Totalenergies is the largest producer on the UK side, and has just completed a merger of their UK production to form Neo Next +. And according to their own website, they are heaving investing in their "Integrated Power" strategy in the UK (https://totalenergies.com/news/press-releases/uk-totalenergies-completes-merger-its-uk-north-sea-upstream-assets-neo-next). This strategy comprises 70% renewable power and 30% gas.
I recognise I may be making some logical leaps and/or being a little credulous about Neo Next +'s intentions, but is this not evidence that one of the largest producers is shifting their investment rather than exiting the UK electricity market?
As to your point about oil, I think that's a separate discussion. I don't doubt the strategic importance, though I do doubt that with our current economic system we gain sovereignty by allowing a multinational to extract reserves within our geographic control.
The backstabbing Judas failed once before and if the answer is Miliband I’d rather Starmer stayed on .
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2047723632378396791
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
On North Sea and control -
If their physical operations are within the U.K., they are subject to UK law. The lease grants in the North Sea include provision for revocation under various circumstances.
So if a multinational decides to play games in the North Sea, they face sanction up to losing their license.
Also, the majors are very careful about local law (yes, funny given the history) - countries round the world watch them. No one wants, these days, the reputation of being politically difficult to the resource country.
Reservoirs can -and do- become damaged by being shut in. For example, if it's a clay formation and they are using water injection to maintain pressures (as I'm pretty sure most Iranian wells will be) then if you stop producing, then the water in the well will end up being absorbed by clays, swelling it and causing the pores to close.
It is a job of any competent defence lawyer to make sure that mental state and conditions be considered, and any expert witness and judge to make sure that it is done objectively.
When Robert Jenrick was stirring about Sentencing Guidelines (that he had been taking through Government as Minister iirc), one of the things he was saying on Facebook (he used different comparator groups on different platforms) was that the suggestion that sentencing reports usually be necessary for disabled defendants meant that it was 2 tier justice.
I would just say I think it is highly unlikely and just Trump sounding off
I am fascinated that over the last few days some posters have been keen to post stories about disgusting immigrant criminality and getting substantial likes for doing so, but this one? Not so much.
25. In mitigation, your barristers argue that the medical evidence is highly relevant to culpability. They argue that you had significant neurodevelopmental and mental health difficulties, marked impulsivity and reduced emotional regulation all of which materially contributed to the commission of these offences.
26. I do not agree, and - in fairness - in her oral submissions, Ms Heeley KC accepted that the medical evidence provided context for your offending rather than any real mitigation. In my judgment, your autism was characterised by deficits in social communication and there is no formal evidence of ADHD. In any event, any such neurodevelopmental disorders do not even start to explain these offences. Your personality traits might explain why you lost your temper when challenged in the unit, but provide no real mitigation for your deliberate and considered actions in breaking into a house in order to commit rape. That said, I accept that your personality may explain your lack of empathy.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/R-v-Ashby-sentencing-remarks-24.4.26.pdf
Fred Dimbleby
@freddimbleby
"It's been a damaging week"
Ed Miliband tells me about the impact of the Mandelson saga on a visit to Sheffield
I asked if he had had conversations with Andy Burnham or Angela Rayner, but he said he is focusing on his job
@itvcalendar
https://x.com/freddimbleby/status/2047642391268467042
renewables, contra Richard's point that I was querying.
Ed Miliband somehow ends up as PM in a coronation .
He does get a bounce because he’s not Starmer .
Labour MPs then delude themselves into thinking okay he might have been a failure last time but you never know he’s doing okay in the polls now and we can’t seriously change leader again .
They go into the next election with him and get eviscerated .
N.B. Zack does seem to have fallen down Corbyn's pro Russian, anti-Semite well
There are too many ambitious cabinet members and he's not an obvious successor in the way Gordon Brown was. And I don't think MPs will want to coronate a man.
Probably another ruse to avoid his corruption trial .
(He claimed the EU provided a pretext, but that was obviously a later excuse he came up with, since if it was a pretext then by definition it was not the EU's fault).
Best be careful, Mr Polanksi.
Al Capone or John Dillinger would probably have been sounder choices.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/38923148/iran-war-threat-world-cup-beer-committee/
Sir Keir Starmer has set up a secret taskforce amid fears the Iran war could disrupt Britain’s World Cup pints.
Insiders say the so-called “beer committee” has been discussing how to keep supplies steady as global pressures build.
Keep calm and carry on drinking.
Can a PDO be far behind?
Hmmh…
We have more aircraft carriers than Argentina, more destroyers, more soldiers and more submarines m, some with nuclear weapons unlike Argentina.
Though Milei is not Galtieri and only interested in a diplomatic solution
Thatcher's time is a distant memory and utterly impossible today
The point is that if someone is acting as the focal point of an interested party then criticism them because of the number of amendments is pretty feeble
It's a balance. You must have safeguards. But you must also appreciate that building in sufficient safeguards to make it 100% impermeable to abuse renders it so restrictive as be useless in practice.
AD is in place in several other countries. So there is no need to approach it as some sort of leap into the unknown. There's nothing special about us in this regard. Same people, same issues.
People, including myself, also post when a man pretending to be a woman sexually assaults a real woman in prison. We don't post when men sexually assault other men in men's prisons, nor when women sexually assault women in women's prisons. That is not to say those assaults aren't bad, although the man pretending to be a woman's assault on woman is worse as well as being the establishment's fault
I am of an age where drinking lager* was seen as a bit soft. Real men drink from the handpumps and learn to like it.
*acceptable when either abroad in a hot country or similar peril.
Next Permanent Labour Leader after Keir Starmer
Ed Miliband 66 £10.20 £673.20 £683.40
I’ve only just changed my profile pic to Andy.
It’s not fair.
Asking for a friend who tipped Ed Miliband at 100/1.