He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
I don't mind that except Miliband at CoE. Please god no, stick Cooper in there or something.
FPT.Cicero said: In the face of the massive Murrell scandal, the SNP is walking on very thin ice. Pretending that it just one bad apple and there is nothing to see is not going to survive as a strategy when the next thing is discovered, and the one thing we do know is that there is more out there.
Flynn might be able to try with the new broom strategy, though losing his old seat is quite a bad look, but overall the Nats are looking both tired, somewhat entitled and a bit sleazy.
Therefore I think we could see growing softness in the SNP vote, and not just in the North East. Considering the long term strength of the SNP in Dundee and Angus, the result in Arbroath and Broughty Ferry was not particularly spectacular either - mostly a function of Labour weakness, and Reform splitting the right in a way that they could not do in Aberdeen. The SNP wave has crested, and if Labour or the Tories recover, the Nats may find the tide is going out, not just at Westminster but also Holyrood.
________________________________
Absolutely second this astute analysis by @Cicero, and lets just see how long the current SNP Government can continue to service the ever growingly expensive and batshit crazy demands of their Scottish Green coalition partners in all but name in return for shoring up their incompetent banana republic adminstration at Holyrood!!
Astute because it agrees with you. The SNP vote held up pretty well. It was the Labour vote that collapsed. If you want expensive and batshit crazy demands, see Brexit and the incompetent banana republic adminstration of every government since.
The Israelis have announced four dead and five wounded following a Hezbollah drone strike on an Israeli tank. Hezbollah are starting to use fibre-optic drones, while the Israelis deploy Russian-style aerial bombardment of urban areas.
If the Israelis don't have any effective drone countermeasures they might be facing a bit of trouble soon.
Old Bengiyis pretty determined.
I see the Israeli revenge ratio is rapidly increasing, now 1000-1.
For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep. All of Lebanon must burn!
With all due respect to the Americans, Israel must make it clear to the entire world that the blood of our sons and the security of our citizens are not forfeit. All of Lebanon must burn. Our supreme duty is to protect the citizens of Israel and the soldiers of the IDF, and this commitment takes precedence over every other consideration.
I told the Prime Minister, even in our private meetings: For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep.
Enough with the ping-pong. In the Middle East, you don’t win with measured responses and restraint—you need to go berserk. To obliterate. To crush the terror.
"It;'s also worth noting that the International annual rate of jobs decline in mature oil fields is set at somehwere between 2-4% so from 1980 to 2030 the natural decline would be from about 130k to around 50k on a 2% decline. or roughly where we will are now regardless of Government policy."
Sorry but I do laugh when people make such ill informed comments.
What the hell has the decline in jobs in mature oil fields got to do with anything. Of course they decline. But then you find NEW oil and gas fields to replace them. There is still an estimated recoverable 15 billion BOE equivalent in the UK sector - set against total UK production since the start of the North Sea of 37 billion BOE equivalent. So there are decades of oil and gas still to be developed. Oh and every prediction ever made for the North Sea since it started has underestimated the reserves.
Those job declines are by no means inevitable except due to political decisions
His comment about basin collapse was interesting, but he failed to observe that it's more likely to happen if new drilling and extraction is discouraged.
No it is going to happen at some point because regardless of new drilling there will be eventual decline and what we need to do is accept that and prepare as best we can before it happens. New development will delay it but it is going to happen.
It's a bit like sending reinforcements to a position you can't hold.
You can delay it but you risk losing more men when it falls.
Best to send only enough to hold long enough to prepare a btetter line of defnce and then get as many out first before it falls.
I don't have a problem with some new marginal developments if they make sense, but ignoring the long term outcome becuase you don't want to face it, is burying your head in the sand.
Peter.
No burying of heads in sand - I think Richard is far more familiar with both the geology and economics of the N Sea, than either you or me (certainly me).
Much like fisherman who say there's "Plenty of Fish !" when there isn't there is nothing stopping people knowledgable about an Industry being as prone to believing what they want too over whats' true.
Nuclear, Coal, Oil & Gas, Fisheries, any community with it's core livelihood under threat, they all put forward every argumnet they can think of, even if contradictory.
I was once involved in a school amalgamantion where the parents argued the village needed the school because;
a) There was planning for lots of houses so they needed a school and
b) Without a school the village would die!
Really? If they are going to build all the house then clearly the village isn't going to die . If the village dies they won't build the houses.
The two schools we're less than a mile apart and the bridge between the two villages was less than 100 yards long!
Two great communities full of good intelegent people, but who none the less, they would have backed pretty much anything to keep their school open.
Peter.
In the case of the North Sea, we have the Norwegians as the example of a different approach. On some cases their fields are actually continuous with the U.K. side - so, in theory, they will end up extracting material from the U.K. geographic zone.
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
I don't mind that except Miliband at CoE. Please god no, stick Cooper in there or something.
He's the favourite on Betfair at 1.66, so prepare yourself.
Sounds like the croc chap needs locking up in a psyc hospital with the key thrown away.
Does it?
If a person with limited mental capacity who has never hurt a fly does something stupid he doesn't understand like; helping the little nice child get a closer look at the nice crocodile and you lock him up for life?
If this is a case of someone with a toddlers level of understanding making a toddlers style mistake, it is a tragedy, not a reason to institutionalise them.
None of us know what happened and if mistakes have been made, what parent or carer hasn't turned round and found someone in their group has or is about to wander off.
Having said that this is modern Britain, so someone must pay, someone needs held to account, a head must roll!
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
I don't mind that except Miliband at CoE. Please god no, stick Cooper in there or something.
He's the favourite on Betfair at 1.66, so prepare yourself.
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
I don't mind that except Miliband at CoE. Please god no, stick Cooper in there or something.
He's the favourite on Betfair at 1.66, so prepare yourself.
Sounds like the croc chap needs locking up in a psyc hospital with the key thrown away.
Does it?
If a person with limited mental capacity who has never hurt a fly does something stupid he doesn't understand like; helping the little nice child get a closer look at the nice crocodile and you lock him up for life?
If this is a case of someone with a toddlers level of understanding making a toddlers style mistake, it is a tragedy, not a reason to institutionalise them.
None of us know what happened and if mistakes have been made, what parent or carer hasn't turned round and found someone in agroup has or is about to wander off. having that that this is modern Britain so someone must pay, someone needs held to account, a head must roll!
The lesson for this for the Tories is to make a clear claim to be the party of business. The oil and gas policy is all well and good but it needs to extend to more areas of the economy. Their EU-obsessed period detracted from that platform.
They've tried that before though. Under Boris they were so keen on business that he kept telling us how he wanted to make lurve to it.
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
I don't mind that except Miliband at CoE. Please god no, stick Cooper in there or something.
He's the favourite on Betfair at 1.66, so prepare yourself.
I'm on Haigh at 30/1
I'm on Haigh at 100/1, laid at 30/1. You might have the other side of my lay.
"It;'s also worth noting that the International annual rate of jobs decline in mature oil fields is set at somehwere between 2-4% so from 1980 to 2030 the natural decline would be from about 130k to around 50k on a 2% decline. or roughly where we will are now regardless of Government policy."
Sorry but I do laugh when people make such ill informed comments.
What the hell has the decline in jobs in mature oil fields got to do with anything. Of course they decline. But then you find NEW oil and gas fields to replace them. There is still an estimated recoverable 15 billion BOE equivalent in the UK sector - set against total UK production since the start of the North Sea of 37 billion BOE equivalent. So there are decades of oil and gas still to be developed. Oh and every prediction ever made for the North Sea since it started has underestimated the reserves.
Those job declines are by no means inevitable except due to political decisions
His comment about basin collapse was interesting, but he failed to observe that it's more likely to happen if new drilling and extraction is discouraged.
No it is going to happen at some point because regardless of new drilling there will be eventual decline and what we need to do is accept that and prepare as best we can before it happens. New development will delay it but it is going to happen.
It's a bit like sending reinforcements to a position you can't hold.
You can delay it but you risk losing more men when it falls.
Best to send only enough to hold long enough to prepare a btetter line of defnce and then get as many out first before it falls.
I don't have a problem with some new marginal developments if they make sense, but ignoring the long term outcome becuase you don't want to face it, is burying your head in the sand.
Peter.
No burying of heads in sand - I think Richard is far more familiar with both the geology and economics of the N Sea, than either you or me (certainly me).
Much like fisherman who say there's "Plenty of Fish !" when there isn't there is nothing stopping people knowledgable about an Industry being as prone to believing what they want too over whats' true.
Nuclear, Coal, Oil & Gas, Fisheries, any community with it's core livelihood under threat, they all put forward every argumnet they can think of, even if contradictory.
I was once involved in a school amalgamantion where the parents argued the village needed the school because;
a) There was planning for lots of houses so they needed a school and
b) Without a school the village would die!
Really? If they are going to build all the house then clearly the village isn't going to die . If the village dies they won't build the houses.
The two schools we're less than a mile apart and the bridge between the two villages was less than 100 yards long!
Two great communities full of good intelegent people, but who none the less, they would have backed pretty much anything to keep their school open.
Peter.
In the case of the North Sea, we have the Norwegians as the example of a different approach. On some cases their fields are actually continuous with the U.K. side - so, in theory, they will end up extracting material from the U.K. geographic zone.
So, what works for them…
Your not seriously suggesting we can just extract oil from further and further away for ever are you.
Are you trying to delay the inevitable or just trying to deny it?
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
Isn't Gordon in the background somewhere? And Harman? Gordon could be a guiding hand towards a settlement for all parties (except Streeting)
Sounds like the croc chap needs locking up in a psyc hospital with the key thrown away.
Does it?
If a person with limited mental capacity who has never hurt a fly does something stupid he doesn't understand like; helping the little nice child get a closer look at the nice crocodile and you lock him up for life?
If this is a case of someone with a toddlers level of understanding making a toddlers style mistake, it is a tragedy, not a reason to institutionalise them.
None of us know what happened and if mistakes have been made, what parent or carer hasn't turned round and found someone in agroup has or is about to wander off. having that that this is modern Britain so someone must pay, someone needs held to account, a head must roll!
Peter.
Yes.
Just out of interest what treatment do you think he would get in this Pysc hospital that would do any good?
My friend @PeterKellner1 is the only polling expert I read who got remotely close to the actual result in Makerfield. It was so far away from what the polling organisations were showing that there's clearly an inquest to be had
There's an inquest into polling failures after every election. What we need is an inquest into why anyone takes polls seriously in the first place.
People can make of polls whatever they will, and no inquest is required. Just one thing is needed. A clear distinction between voodoo polling of various sorts and stuff which has a methodology which is made public so that people who care about it - anoraks, wonks, MPs, gamblers, PB posters and other dissolutes - can take a view on it.
When all is said, polls provide a useful light on the direction of travel, and for some of us add to the gaiety of nations. They also produce an industry for Sir John Curtice to discuss who is to my mind a national treasure.
Sounds like the croc chap needs locking up in a psyc hospital with the key thrown away.
Does it?
If a person with limited mental capacity who has never hurt a fly does something stupid he doesn't understand like; helping the little nice child get a closer look at the nice crocodile and you lock him up for life?
If this is a case of someone with a toddlers level of understanding making a toddlers style mistake, it is a tragedy, not a reason to institutionalise them.
None of us know what happened and if mistakes have been made, what parent or carer hasn't turned round and found someone in agroup has or is about to wander off. having that that this is modern Britain so someone must pay, someone needs held to account, a head must roll!
Peter.
Yes.
Just out of interest what treatment do you think he would get in this Pysc hospital that would do any good?
Peter.
He wouldn't be able to chuck small children off bridges.
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
If Burnham is ruthless enough to be a good prime minister, he should betray Miliband and send him to the backbenches. He doesn't need to repeat Blair's mistake of having a scheming backseat driver in Number 11 who thinks he would make a better PM.
Labour might be value here. Reform are on a down, Labour on an up, and Mancunian voters might think there are goodies to be had from a Labour mayor in combination with ex Labour mayor as PM.
If Burnham or indeed whoever is PM of course, all they need to do is threaten to cut funding.
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
If Burnham is ruthless enough to be a good prime minister, he should betray Miliband and send him to the backbenches. He doesn't need to repeat Blair's mistake of having a scheming backseat driver in Number 11 who thinks he would make a better PM.
Ed Miliband has explicitly stated that he does not want to become Prime Minister or lead the Labour Party again.
Addressing rumors that he might harbor desires to return to the party's helm, Miliband stated: "I had the best inoculation technique against wanting to be leader of the Labour Party, which is that I was leader of the Labour Party."
He further solidified his refusal to seek a political comeback in the top role by adding, "Definitely not, being a Donald Trump, coming back for more.
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
I don't mind that except Miliband at CoE. Please god no, stick Cooper in there or something.
He's the favourite on Betfair at 1.66, so prepare yourself.
Have I ever mentioned last December I tipped Ed Miliband as next Chancellor at 33/1?
Not many constituencies in England & Wales are quite so directly impacted.
I think you'll find we're all very much affected by the loony tunes energy strategy. They are just at the particularly sharp end.
Therein lies Kemi's problem. How to generalise the energy issue so it hits beyond Aberdeen, and does not have Starmer Burnham retorting that it was actually the last Tory government wot done it.
I hope all the Kemi Badenoch doubters on here have just watched her speaking live in Aberdeen South and absolutely nailing it when it comes to what matters. And most importantly she again was making the clear point that while all of the focus has been on one mans future job in the Makerfield by-election the campaign run in Aberdeen South by the Conservatives was all about focussing on thousands of jobs in the North East of Scotland.
Have we heard from Foxy 'easy SNP hold' today? *innocent face*
Yes, and we’ve also heard from William ‘Makerfield will be Labour’s Waterloo’ Glenn *Dr Evil face*
I said that after the date of the by-election was set but before Reform chose their candidate.
"It;'s also worth noting that the International annual rate of jobs decline in mature oil fields is set at somehwere between 2-4% so from 1980 to 2030 the natural decline would be from about 130k to around 50k on a 2% decline. or roughly where we will are now regardless of Government policy."
Sorry but I do laugh when people make such ill informed comments.
What the hell has the decline in jobs in mature oil fields got to do with anything. Of course they decline. But then you find NEW oil and gas fields to replace them. There is still an estimated recoverable 15 billion BOE equivalent in the UK sector - set against total UK production since the start of the North Sea of 37 billion BOE equivalent. So there are decades of oil and gas still to be developed. Oh and every prediction ever made for the North Sea since it started has underestimated the reserves.
Those job declines are by no means inevitable except due to political decisions
His comment about basin collapse was interesting, but he failed to observe that it's more likely to happen if new drilling and extraction is discouraged.
No it is going to happen at some point because regardless of new drilling there will be eventual decline and what we need to do is accept that and prepare as best we can before it happens. New development will delay it but it is going to happen.
It's a bit like sending reinforcements to a position you can't hold.
You can delay it but you risk losing more men when it falls.
Best to send only enough to hold long enough to prepare a btetter line of defnce and then get as many out first before it falls.
I don't have a problem with some new marginal developments if they make sense, but ignoring the long term outcome becuase you don't want to face it, is burying your head in the sand.
Peter.
No burying of heads in sand - I think Richard is far more familiar with both the geology and economics of the N Sea, than either you or me (certainly me).
Much like fisherman who say there's "Plenty of Fish !" when there isn't there is nothing stopping people knowledgable about an Industry being as prone to believing what they want too over whats' true.
Nuclear, Coal, Oil & Gas, Fisheries, any community with it's core livelihood under threat, they all put forward every argumnet they can think of, even if contradictory.
I was once involved in a school amalgamantion where the parents argued the village needed the school because;
a) There was planning for lots of houses so they needed a school and
b) Without a school the village would die!
Really? If they are going to build all the house then clearly the village isn't going to die . If the village dies they won't build the houses.
The two schools we're less than a mile apart and the bridge between the two villages was less than 100 yards long!
Two great communities full of good intelegent people, but who none the less, they would have backed pretty much anything to keep their school open.
Peter.
In the case of the North Sea, we have the Norwegians as the example of a different approach. On some cases their fields are actually continuous with the U.K. side - so, in theory, they will end up extracting material from the U.K. geographic zone.
So, what works for them…
Your not seriously suggesting we can just extract oil from further and further away for ever are you.
Are you trying to delay the inevitable or just trying to deny it?
Peter.
You do not seem to understand.
The oil and gas is there. Right now, the Norwegians are extracting and continuing to work on extracting.
These are economically proven reserves. The cost for extraction is, largely, known.
The Norwegians are choosing to allow the extraction. The U.K. government is not.
"It;'s also worth noting that the International annual rate of jobs decline in mature oil fields is set at somehwere between 2-4% so from 1980 to 2030 the natural decline would be from about 130k to around 50k on a 2% decline. or roughly where we will are now regardless of Government policy."
Sorry but I do laugh when people make such ill informed comments.
What the hell has the decline in jobs in mature oil fields got to do with anything. Of course they decline. But then you find NEW oil and gas fields to replace them. There is still an estimated recoverable 15 billion BOE equivalent in the UK sector - set against total UK production since the start of the North Sea of 37 billion BOE equivalent. So there are decades of oil and gas still to be developed. Oh and every prediction ever made for the North Sea since it started has underestimated the reserves.
Those job declines are by no means inevitable except due to political decisions
His comment about basin collapse was interesting, but he failed to observe that it's more likely to happen if new drilling and extraction is discouraged.
No it is going to happen at some point because regardless of new drilling there will be eventual decline and what we need to do is accept that and prepare as best we can before it happens. New development will delay it but it is going to happen.
It's a bit like sending reinforcements to a position you can't hold.
You can delay it but you risk losing more men when it falls.
Best to send only enough to hold long enough to prepare a btetter line of defnce and then get as many out first before it falls.
I don't have a problem with some new marginal developments if they make sense, but ignoring the long term outcome becuase you don't want to face it, is burying your head in the sand.
Peter.
No burying of heads in sand - I think Richard is far more familiar with both the geology and economics of the N Sea, than either you or me (certainly me).
Much like fisherman who say there's "Plenty of Fish !" when there isn't there is nothing stopping people knowledgable about an Industry being as prone to believing what they want too over whats' true.
Nuclear, Coal, Oil & Gas, Fisheries, any community with it's core livelihood under threat, they all put forward every argumnet they can think of, even if contradictory.
I was once involved in a school amalgamantion where the parents argued the village needed the school because;
a) There was planning for lots of houses so they needed a school and
b) Without a school the village would die!
Really? If they are going to build all the house then clearly the village isn't going to die . If the village dies they won't build the houses.
The two schools we're less than a mile apart and the bridge between the two villages was less than 100 yards long!
Two great communities full of good intelegent people, but who none the less, they would have backed pretty much anything to keep their school open.
Peter.
In the case of the North Sea, we have the Norwegians as the example of a different approach. On some cases their fields are actually continuous with the U.K. side - so, in theory, they will end up extracting material from the U.K. geographic zone.
So, what works for them…
Your not seriously suggesting we can just extract oil from further and further away for ever are you.
Are you trying to delay the inevitable or just trying to deny it?
Peter.
You do not seem to understand.
The oil and gas is there. Right now, the Norwegians are extracting and continuing to work on extracting.
These are economically proven reserves. The cost for extraction is, largely, known.
The Norwegians are choosing to allow the extraction. The U.K. government is not.
"It;'s also worth noting that the International annual rate of jobs decline in mature oil fields is set at somehwere between 2-4% so from 1980 to 2030 the natural decline would be from about 130k to around 50k on a 2% decline. or roughly where we will are now regardless of Government policy."
Sorry but I do laugh when people make such ill informed comments.
What the hell has the decline in jobs in mature oil fields got to do with anything. Of course they decline. But then you find NEW oil and gas fields to replace them. There is still an estimated recoverable 15 billion BOE equivalent in the UK sector - set against total UK production since the start of the North Sea of 37 billion BOE equivalent. So there are decades of oil and gas still to be developed. Oh and every prediction ever made for the North Sea since it started has underestimated the reserves.
Those job declines are by no means inevitable except due to political decisions
His comment about basin collapse was interesting, but he failed to observe that it's more likely to happen if new drilling and extraction is discouraged.
No it is going to happen at some point because regardless of new drilling there will be eventual decline and what we need to do is accept that and prepare as best we can before it happens. New development will delay it but it is going to happen.
It's a bit like sending reinforcements to a position you can't hold.
You can delay it but you risk losing more men when it falls.
Best to send only enough to hold long enough to prepare a btetter line of defnce and then get as many out first before it falls.
I don't have a problem with some new marginal developments if they make sense, but ignoring the long term outcome becuase you don't want to face it, is burying your head in the sand.
Peter.
No burying of heads in sand - I think Richard is far more familiar with both the geology and economics of the N Sea, than either you or me (certainly me).
Much like fisherman who say there's "Plenty of Fish !" when there isn't there is nothing stopping people knowledgable about an Industry being as prone to believing what they want too over whats' true.
Nuclear, Coal, Oil & Gas, Fisheries, any community with it's core livelihood under threat, they all put forward every argumnet they can think of, even if contradictory.
I was once involved in a school amalgamantion where the parents argued the village needed the school because;
a) There was planning for lots of houses so they needed a school and
b) Without a school the village would die!
Really? If they are going to build all the house then clearly the village isn't going to die . If the village dies they won't build the houses.
The two schools we're less than a mile apart and the bridge between the two villages was less than 100 yards long!
Two great communities full of good intelegent people, but who none the less, they would have backed pretty much anything to keep their school open.
Peter.
No, not al all like that. Richard is an analyst rather than a sophist.
Sounds like the croc chap needs locking up in a psyc hospital with the key thrown away.
Does it?
If a person with limited mental capacity who has never hurt a fly does something stupid he doesn't understand like; helping the little nice child get a closer look at the nice crocodile and you lock him up for life?
If this is a case of someone with a toddlers level of understanding making a toddlers style mistake, it is a tragedy, not a reason to institutionalise them.
None of us know what happened and if mistakes have been made, what parent or carer hasn't turned round and found someone in agroup has or is about to wander off. having that that this is modern Britain so someone must pay, someone needs held to account, a head must roll!
Peter.
Yes.
Just out of interest what treatment do you think he would get in this Pysc hospital that would do any good?
Peter.
He wouldn't be able to chuck small children off bridges.
James.
So you are the kind of heartless fascist that would restrict the availability of bridges (and small children to lob off them) in Psych wards?
Not many constituencies in England & Wales are quite so directly impacted.
I think you'll find we're all very much affected by the loony tunes energy strategy. They are just at the particularly sharp end.
Therein lies Kemi's problem. How to generalise the energy issue so it hits beyond Aberdeen, and does not have Starmer Burnham retorting that it was actually the last Tory government wot done it.
I'd say she's doing a pretty good job.
In Aberdeen
Posts like this help explain why the SNP has done so well for 20+ years. Just because you live in the south of England, doesn't make Scottish politics unimportant.
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
I don't mind that except Miliband at CoE. Please god no, stick Cooper in there or something.
Yvette Cooper is a trained economist who would be a natural fit at the Treasury; her education was the same as Rachel Reeves' (Oxford PPE & LSE MSc Economics). The reasons I doubt Yvette will get Number 11 are that she has a reputation for indecision and would be seen as a proxy for her husband who dreamt of being Chancellor himself. And yes, that is a bit misogynistic.
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
If Burnham is ruthless enough to be a good prime minister, he should betray Miliband and send him to the backbenches. He doesn't need to repeat Blair's mistake of having a scheming backseat driver in Number 11 who thinks he would make a better PM.
Ed Miliband has explicitly stated that he does not want to become Prime Minister or lead the Labour Party again.
Addressing rumors that he might harbor desires to return to the party's helm, Miliband stated: "I had the best inoculation technique against wanting to be leader of the Labour Party, which is that I was leader of the Labour Party."
He further solidified his refusal to seek a political comeback in the top role by adding, "Definitely not, being a Donald Trump, coming back for more.
Indeed. It was likely the daily roasting in the press that put off Rayner as well as Miliband. I do wonder if Andy Burnham knows quite what he is letting himself in for after seven years of puff pieces in Manchester's local rags.
France's oldest female detainee, 79, goes on trial for in-law's grisly murder
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy498llene1o ..Her lawyer Najwa El Haïté argued: "The way [Di Dio] was killed – they were the methods of the underworld, of organised crime. No head, no hands – that's not the method of a Marie-Thérèse, a woman with no criminal record." The complicating factor is that Garcia and Di Dio were both very much connected to the criminal underworld...
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
If Burnham is ruthless enough to be a good prime minister, he should betray Miliband and send him to the backbenches. He doesn't need to repeat Blair's mistake of having a scheming backseat driver in Number 11 who thinks he would make a better PM.
Ed Miliband has explicitly stated that he does not want to become Prime Minister or lead the Labour Party again.
Addressing rumors that he might harbor desires to return to the party's helm, Miliband stated: "I had the best inoculation technique against wanting to be leader of the Labour Party, which is that I was leader of the Labour Party."
He further solidified his refusal to seek a political comeback in the top role by adding, "Definitely not, being a Donald Trump, coming back for more.
I don't think I believe him, but in any case, not wanting the job himself doesn't preclude him from thinking that he'd be better at it or being a disruptive presence.
On the other hand, at the end of the Brown Government of which Burnham was a member, Liam Byrne wrote the famous lines "I'm afraid there is no money". Presume AB has seen the splurges of cash by intervening governments and the current level of debt, so I wonder where he is going to get money for any policies he thinks he can enact.
He'll have to use all his charm to keep the PLP in line while dealing with the overhanging debt we've all inherited (apart from Sandpit and LostPassword who are no longer with us)
Shocked to learn that my local MP, Cameron Thomas, has been suspended pending a police investigation. Details are scan on the Beeb. Anyone here know what is going on?
Sounds like the croc chap needs locking up in a psyc hospital with the key thrown away.
Does it?
If a person with limited mental capacity who has never hurt a fly does something stupid he doesn't understand like; helping the little nice child get a closer look at the nice crocodile and you lock him up for life?
If this is a case of someone with a toddlers level of understanding making a toddlers style mistake, it is a tragedy, not a reason to institutionalise them.
None of us know what happened and if mistakes have been made, what parent or carer hasn't turned round and found someone in their group has or is about to wander off.
Having said that this is modern Britain, so someone must pay, someone needs held to account, a head must roll!
Peter.
I guess we'll just have to move on and get over it - even the kid who was torn up by a crocodile.
caroline wheeler @cazjwheeler · 52m Excl: Keir Starmer is ringing members of the Cabinet in a bid to shore up his position in the wake of Andy Burnham’s by-election victory.
"Of course, on a personal level, I fully support you. But my fear is that, if you allow for a contest, you will not win..."
Either that, or "mwah mwah mwah..." which translates as "I've just had some dental work done."
He's delusional if he thinks he can stop the narrative of Burnham the saviour of the party. Happy for him to try though.
Shocked to learn that my local MP, Cameron Thomas, has been suspended pending a police investigation. Details are scan on the Beeb. Anyone here know what is going on?
A 5 s trawl on X suggests coercive control. But all allegations so far.
My friend @PeterKellner1 is the only polling expert I read who got remotely close to the actual result in Makerfield. It was so far away from what the polling organisations were showing that there's clearly an inquest to be had
Today just got even better and a great result For Women Scotland and common sense when it comes to protecting women's spaces! Again lets just see how John Swinney squares this with his batshit crazy Scottish Green coalition partners in all but name...
X Chris McCall@Dennynews·1h John Swinney’s day going from bad to worse as a judge rules Scotland’s prison policy, which allows trans inmates in women's jails, is unlawful.
Lady Ross says the law requires clear separation based on biological sex.
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
If Burnham is ruthless enough to be a good prime minister, he should betray Miliband and send him to the backbenches. He doesn't need to repeat Blair's mistake of having a scheming backseat driver in Number 11 who thinks he would make a better PM.
Ed Miliband has explicitly stated that he does not want to become Prime Minister or lead the Labour Party again.
Addressing rumors that he might harbor desires to return to the party's helm, Miliband stated: "I had the best inoculation technique against wanting to be leader of the Labour Party, which is that I was leader of the Labour Party."
He further solidified his refusal to seek a political comeback in the top role by adding, "Definitely not, being a Donald Trump, coming back for more.
I don't think I believe him, but in any case, not wanting the job himself doesn't preclude him from thinking that he'd be better at it or being a disruptive presence.
The other reason for not wanting to be Prime Minister is Ed Miliband grew up politically under New Labour where Gordon Brown effectively ran domestic policy from the Treasury while Tony Blair dealt with world leaders. For a politician with no real interest in foreign affairs, Chancellor and de factor home PM might well look the better job.
"Late on Wednesday, Liz released her latest offering. Boldly called: “Labour’s Secret Plan: Labour PANICKING as Reform surges in Makerfield By-Election.” This promised to be the inside story on Makerfield. An on-the-ground exposé of what all the major media outlets had missed."
My friend @PeterKellner1 is the only polling expert I read who got remotely close to the actual result in Makerfield. It was so far away from what the polling organisations were showing that there's clearly an inquest to be had
My friend @PeterKellner1 is the only polling expert I read who got remotely close to the actual result in Makerfield. It was so far away from what the polling organisations were showing that there's clearly an inquest to be had
Today just got even better and a great result For Women Scotland and common sense when it comes to protecting women's spaces! Again lets just see how John Swinney squares this with his batshit crazy Scottish Green coalition partners in all but name...
X Chris McCall@Dennynews·1h John Swinney’s day going from bad to worse as a judge rules Scotland’s prison policy, which allows trans inmates in women's jails, is unlawful.
Lady Ross says the law requires clear separation based on biological sex.
I hate to say this but of all the repercussions of FWS Vs Scottish Ministers, this is the least surprising. When the SC ruled that a trans woman was a biological male for purposes of the EqA regardless of certification or genital surgery (I will chase this up @RochdalePioneers and @malcolmg, honest!), this became inevitable.
"It;'s also worth noting that the International annual rate of jobs decline in mature oil fields is set at somehwere between 2-4% so from 1980 to 2030 the natural decline would be from about 130k to around 50k on a 2% decline. or roughly where we will are now regardless of Government policy."
Sorry but I do laugh when people make such ill informed comments.
What the hell has the decline in jobs in mature oil fields got to do with anything. Of course they decline. But then you find NEW oil and gas fields to replace them. There is still an estimated recoverable 15 billion BOE equivalent in the UK sector - set against total UK production since the start of the North Sea of 37 billion BOE equivalent. So there are decades of oil and gas still to be developed. Oh and every prediction ever made for the North Sea since it started has underestimated the reserves.
Those job declines are by no means inevitable except due to political decisions
His comment about basin collapse was interesting, but he failed to observe that it's more likely to happen if new drilling and extraction is discouraged.
No it is going to happen at some point because regardless of new drilling there will be eventual decline and what we need to do is accept that and prepare as best we can before it happens. New development will delay it but it is going to happen.
It's a bit like sending reinforcements to a position you can't hold.
You can delay it but you risk losing more men when it falls.
Best to send only enough to hold long enough to prepare a btetter line of defnce and then get as many out first before it falls.
I don't have a problem with some new marginal developments if they make sense, but ignoring the long term outcome becuase you don't want to face it, is burying your head in the sand.
Peter.
No burying of heads in sand - I think Richard is far more familiar with both the geology and economics of the N Sea, than either you or me (certainly me).
Much like fisherman who say there's "Plenty of Fish !" when there isn't there is nothing stopping people knowledgable about an Industry being as prone to believing what they want too over whats' true.
Nuclear, Coal, Oil & Gas, Fisheries, any community with it's core livelihood under threat, they all put forward every argumnet they can think of, even if contradictory.
I was once involved in a school amalgamantion where the parents argued the village needed the school because;
a) There was planning for lots of houses so they needed a school and
b) Without a school the village would die!
Really? If they are going to build all the house then clearly the village isn't going to die . If the village dies they won't build the houses.
The two schools we're less than a mile apart and the bridge between the two villages was less than 100 yards long!
Two great communities full of good intelegent people, but who none the less, they would have backed pretty much anything to keep their school open.
Peter.
No, not al all like that. Richard is an analyst rather than a sophist.
So has he analysised just how much of that oil that "Could Be" extracted, can actually be done economically and whether the size and location of fields makes that viable or is it just "Look at his CV!"
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
If Burnham is ruthless enough to be a good prime minister, he should betray Miliband and send him to the backbenches. He doesn't need to repeat Blair's mistake of having a scheming backseat driver in Number 11 who thinks he would make a better PM.
Ed Miliband has explicitly stated that he does not want to become Prime Minister or lead the Labour Party again.
Addressing rumors that he might harbor desires to return to the party's helm, Miliband stated: "I had the best inoculation technique against wanting to be leader of the Labour Party, which is that I was leader of the Labour Party."
He further solidified his refusal to seek a political comeback in the top role by adding, "Definitely not, being a Donald Trump, coming back for more.
I don't think I believe him, but in any case, not wanting the job himself doesn't preclude him from thinking that he'd be better at it or being a disruptive presence.
The other reason for not wanting to be Prime Minister is Ed Miliband grew up politically under New Labour where Gordon Brown effectively ran domestic policy from the Treasury while Tony Blair dealt with world leaders. For a politician with no real interest in foreign affairs, Chancellor and de factor home PM might well look the better job.
If memory serves, Finland formalises this by having the PM do domestic stuff and the Foreign Secretary do foreign stuff.
PM Burnham could make Starmer Minister for the United States and Ambassador to Washington, Lammy Minister for the RestOfTheWorld, and X as CotE, where "x" is somebody competent. Milliband should stay as Energy Sec, he just needs overruling occasionally (carbon capture, killing the oil industry)
"It;'s also worth noting that the International annual rate of jobs decline in mature oil fields is set at somehwere between 2-4% so from 1980 to 2030 the natural decline would be from about 130k to around 50k on a 2% decline. or roughly where we will are now regardless of Government policy."
Sorry but I do laugh when people make such ill informed comments.
What the hell has the decline in jobs in mature oil fields got to do with anything. Of course they decline. But then you find NEW oil and gas fields to replace them. There is still an estimated recoverable 15 billion BOE equivalent in the UK sector - set against total UK production since the start of the North Sea of 37 billion BOE equivalent. So there are decades of oil and gas still to be developed. Oh and every prediction ever made for the North Sea since it started has underestimated the reserves.
Those job declines are by no means inevitable except due to political decisions
His comment about basin collapse was interesting, but he failed to observe that it's more likely to happen if new drilling and extraction is discouraged.
No it is going to happen at some point because regardless of new drilling there will be eventual decline and what we need to do is accept that and prepare as best we can before it happens. New development will delay it but it is going to happen.
It's a bit like sending reinforcements to a position you can't hold.
You can delay it but you risk losing more men when it falls.
Best to send only enough to hold long enough to prepare a btetter line of defnce and then get as many out first before it falls.
I don't have a problem with some new marginal developments if they make sense, but ignoring the long term outcome becuase you don't want to face it, is burying your head in the sand.
Peter.
No burying of heads in sand - I think Richard is far more familiar with both the geology and economics of the N Sea, than either you or me (certainly me).
Much like fisherman who say there's "Plenty of Fish !" when there isn't there is nothing stopping people knowledgable about an Industry being as prone to believing what they want too over whats' true.
Nuclear, Coal, Oil & Gas, Fisheries, any community with it's core livelihood under threat, they all put forward every argumnet they can think of, even if contradictory.
I was once involved in a school amalgamantion where the parents argued the village needed the school because;
a) There was planning for lots of houses so they needed a school and
b) Without a school the village would die!
Really? If they are going to build all the house then clearly the village isn't going to die . If the village dies they won't build the houses.
The two schools we're less than a mile apart and the bridge between the two villages was less than 100 yards long!
Two great communities full of good intelegent people, but who none the less, they would have backed pretty much anything to keep their school open.
Peter.
No, not al all like that. Richard is an analyst rather than a sophist.
So has he analysised just how much of that oil that "Could Be" extracted, can actually be done economically and whether the size and location of fields makes that viable or is it just "Look at his CV!"
Peter.
Sigh. The proven reserves, which we are talking about, include the cost and organisation of extraction in the *proving* of them.
Which is why they are *proven*.
Among other things, investors are kinda interested in costs.
"It;'s also worth noting that the International annual rate of jobs decline in mature oil fields is set at somehwere between 2-4% so from 1980 to 2030 the natural decline would be from about 130k to around 50k on a 2% decline. or roughly where we will are now regardless of Government policy."
Sorry but I do laugh when people make such ill informed comments.
What the hell has the decline in jobs in mature oil fields got to do with anything. Of course they decline. But then you find NEW oil and gas fields to replace them. There is still an estimated recoverable 15 billion BOE equivalent in the UK sector - set against total UK production since the start of the North Sea of 37 billion BOE equivalent. So there are decades of oil and gas still to be developed. Oh and every prediction ever made for the North Sea since it started has underestimated the reserves.
Those job declines are by no means inevitable except due to political decisions
His comment about basin collapse was interesting, but he failed to observe that it's more likely to happen if new drilling and extraction is discouraged.
No it is going to happen at some point because regardless of new drilling there will be eventual decline and what we need to do is accept that and prepare as best we can before it happens. New development will delay it but it is going to happen.
It's a bit like sending reinforcements to a position you can't hold.
You can delay it but you risk losing more men when it falls.
Best to send only enough to hold long enough to prepare a btetter line of defnce and then get as many out first before it falls.
I don't have a problem with some new marginal developments if they make sense, but ignoring the long term outcome becuase you don't want to face it, is burying your head in the sand.
Peter.
No burying of heads in sand - I think Richard is far more familiar with both the geology and economics of the N Sea, than either you or me (certainly me).
Much like fisherman who say there's "Plenty of Fish !" when there isn't there is nothing stopping people knowledgable about an Industry being as prone to believing what they want too over whats' true.
Nuclear, Coal, Oil & Gas, Fisheries, any community with it's core livelihood under threat, they all put forward every argumnet they can think of, even if contradictory.
I was once involved in a school amalgamantion where the parents argued the village needed the school because;
a) There was planning for lots of houses so they needed a school and
b) Without a school the village would die!
Really? If they are going to build all the house then clearly the village isn't going to die . If the village dies they won't build the houses.
The two schools we're less than a mile apart and the bridge between the two villages was less than 100 yards long!
Two great communities full of good intelegent people, but who none the less, they would have backed pretty much anything to keep their school open.
Peter.
No, not al all like that. Richard is an analyst rather than a sophist.
So has he analysised just how much of that oil that "Could Be" extracted, can actually be done economically and whether the size and location of fields makes that viable...
That's essentially his job, as I understand it, and has been for many years.
My friend @PeterKellner1 is the only polling expert I read who got remotely close to the actual result in Makerfield. It was so far away from what the polling organisations were showing that there's clearly an inquest to be had
Sounds like the croc chap needs locking up in a psyc hospital with the key thrown away.
Does it?
If a person with limited mental capacity who has never hurt a fly does something stupid he doesn't understand like; helping the little nice child get a closer look at the nice crocodile and you lock him up for life?
If this is a case of someone with a toddlers level of understanding making a toddlers style mistake, it is a tragedy, not a reason to institutionalise them.
None of us know what happened and if mistakes have been made, what parent or carer hasn't turned round and found someone in their group has or is about to wander off.
Having said that this is modern Britain, so someone must pay, someone needs held to account, a head must roll!
Peter.
I guess we'll just have to move on and get over it - even the kid who was torn up by a crocodile.
It’s unclear whether there was any crocodile involvement. The walkways were 15 ft up so the fall would be pretty harmful in itself.
Sounds like the croc chap needs locking up in a psyc hospital with the key thrown away.
Does it?
If a person with limited mental capacity who has never hurt a fly does something stupid he doesn't understand like; helping the little nice child get a closer look at the nice crocodile and you lock him up for life?
If this is a case of someone with a toddlers level of understanding making a toddlers style mistake, it is a tragedy, not a reason to institutionalise them.
None of us know what happened and if mistakes have been made, what parent or carer hasn't turned round and found someone in their group has or is about to wander off.
Having said that this is modern Britain, so someone must pay, someone needs held to account, a head must roll!
Peter.
I guess we'll just have to move on and get over it - even the kid who was torn up by a crocodile.
It’s unclear whether there was any crocodile involvement. The walkways were 15 ft up so the fall would be pretty harmful in itself.
The BBC are now saying the child was attacked by at least one crocodile.
TRUMP SPARKS DIPLOMATIC CRISIS WITH ITALY: Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani has canceled his planned June 21–22 trip to Washington after President Trump insulted Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, claiming she “begged” for a photo with him at the G7 and that he “felt sorry for her.”
Meloni released a video firing back at Trump’s comments, calling them “completely fabricated.”
“I am frankly appalled,” she said. “I don’t know why the President of the United States behaves this way towards his allies.”
She added that Trump appears to show more accommodation toward “the enemies of the West” than America’s allies and concluded by saying: “Italy and I never beg.” https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/2067940653401596320
My friend @PeterKellner1 is the only polling expert I read who got remotely close to the actual result in Makerfield. It was so far away from what the polling organisations were showing that there's clearly an inquest to be had
Shocked to learn that my local MP, Cameron Thomas, has been suspended pending a police investigation. Details are scan on the Beeb. Anyone here know what is going on?
I heard he was planning to call for Starmer to stand down
TRUMP SPARKS DIPLOMATIC CRISIS WITH ITALY: Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani has canceled his planned June 21–22 trip to Washington after President Trump insulted Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, claiming she “begged” for a photo with him at the G7 and that he “felt sorry for her.”
Meloni released a video firing back at Trump’s comments, calling them “completely fabricated.”
“I am frankly appalled,” she said. “I don’t know why the President of the United States behaves this way towards his allies.”
She added that Trump appears to show more accommodation toward “the enemies of the West” than America’s allies and concluded by saying: “Italy and I never beg.” https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/2067940653401596320
He makes up stories like this all the time and usually everyone ignores it as it's not worth a spat. But she is right about how he acts.
My friend @PeterKellner1 is the only polling expert I read who got remotely close to the actual result in Makerfield. It was so far away from what the polling organisations were showing that there's clearly an inquest to be had
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
I think there will be a couple of others.
Louise Haigh will get a mid-level to senior cabinet post. I'd put her back to Transport like a shot.
And Anneliese Midgley, who I could see getting some sort of interdepartmental role as a fixer, as she is very well connected. Cabinet Office?
That's not really based on my deep knowledge, but more on listening to (I hope) informed commentary.
My friend @PeterKellner1 is the only polling expert I read who got remotely close to the actual result in Makerfield. It was so far away from what the polling organisations were showing that there's clearly an inquest to be had
"It;'s also worth noting that the International annual rate of jobs decline in mature oil fields is set at somehwere between 2-4% so from 1980 to 2030 the natural decline would be from about 130k to around 50k on a 2% decline. or roughly where we will are now regardless of Government policy."
Sorry but I do laugh when people make such ill informed comments.
What the hell has the decline in jobs in mature oil fields got to do with anything. Of course they decline. But then you find NEW oil and gas fields to replace them. There is still an estimated recoverable 15 billion BOE equivalent in the UK sector - set against total UK production since the start of the North Sea of 37 billion BOE equivalent. So there are decades of oil and gas still to be developed. Oh and every prediction ever made for the North Sea since it started has underestimated the reserves.
Those job declines are by no means inevitable except due to political decisions
His comment about basin collapse was interesting, but he failed to observe that it's more likely to happen if new drilling and extraction is discouraged.
No it is going to happen at some point because regardless of new drilling there will be eventual decline and what we need to do is accept that and prepare as best we can before it happens. New development will delay it but it is going to happen.
It's a bit like sending reinforcements to a position you can't hold.
You can delay it but you risk losing more men when it falls.
Best to send only enough to hold long enough to prepare a btetter line of defnce and then get as many out first before it falls.
I don't have a problem with some new marginal developments if they make sense, but ignoring the long term outcome becuase you don't want to face it, is burying your head in the sand.
Peter.
No burying of heads in sand - I think Richard is far more familiar with both the geology and economics of the N Sea, than either you or me (certainly me).
Much like fisherman who say there's "Plenty of Fish !" when there isn't there is nothing stopping people knowledgable about an Industry being as prone to believing what they want too over whats' true.
Nuclear, Coal, Oil & Gas, Fisheries, any community with it's core livelihood under threat, they all put forward every argumnet they can think of, even if contradictory.
I was once involved in a school amalgamantion where the parents argued the village needed the school because;
a) There was planning for lots of houses so they needed a school and
b) Without a school the village would die!
Really? If they are going to build all the house then clearly the village isn't going to die . If the village dies they won't build the houses.
The two schools we're less than a mile apart and the bridge between the two villages was less than 100 yards long!
Two great communities full of good intelegent people, but who none the less, they would have backed pretty much anything to keep their school open.
Peter.
In the case of the North Sea, we have the Norwegians as the example of a different approach. On some cases their fields are actually continuous with the U.K. side - so, in theory, they will end up extracting material from the U.K. geographic zone.
So, what works for them…
Your not seriously suggesting we can just extract oil from further and further away for ever are you.
Are you trying to delay the inevitable or just trying to deny it?
"It;'s also worth noting that the International annual rate of jobs decline in mature oil fields is set at somehwere between 2-4% so from 1980 to 2030 the natural decline would be from about 130k to around 50k on a 2% decline. or roughly where we will are now regardless of Government policy."
Sorry but I do laugh when people make such ill informed comments.
What the hell has the decline in jobs in mature oil fields got to do with anything. Of course they decline. But then you find NEW oil and gas fields to replace them. There is still an estimated recoverable 15 billion BOE equivalent in the UK sector - set against total UK production since the start of the North Sea of 37 billion BOE equivalent. So there are decades of oil and gas still to be developed. Oh and every prediction ever made for the North Sea since it started has underestimated the reserves.
Those job declines are by no means inevitable except due to political decisions
His comment about basin collapse was interesting, but he failed to observe that it's more likely to happen if new drilling and extraction is discouraged.
No it is going to happen at some point because regardless of new drilling there will be eventual decline and what we need to do is accept that and prepare as best we can before it happens. New development will delay it but it is going to happen.
It's a bit like sending reinforcements to a position you can't hold.
You can delay it but you risk losing more men when it falls.
Best to send only enough to hold long enough to prepare a btetter line of defnce and then get as many out first before it falls.
I don't have a problem with some new marginal developments if they make sense, but ignoring the long term outcome becuase you don't want to face it, is burying your head in the sand.
Peter.
No burying of heads in sand - I think Richard is far more familiar with both the geology and economics of the N Sea, than either you or me (certainly me).
Much like fisherman who say there's "Plenty of Fish !" when there isn't there is nothing stopping people knowledgable about an Industry being as prone to believing what they want too over whats' true.
Nuclear, Coal, Oil & Gas, Fisheries, any community with it's core livelihood under threat, they all put forward every argumnet they can think of, even if contradictory.
I was once involved in a school amalgamantion where the parents argued the village needed the school because;
a) There was planning for lots of houses so they needed a school and
b) Without a school the village would die!
Really? If they are going to build all the house then clearly the village isn't going to die . If the village dies they won't build the houses.
The two schools we're less than a mile apart and the bridge between the two villages was less than 100 yards long!
Two great communities full of good intelegent people, but who none the less, they would have backed pretty much anything to keep their school open.
Peter.
In the case of the North Sea, we have the Norwegians as the example of a different approach. On some cases their fields are actually continuous with the U.K. side - so, in theory, they will end up extracting material from the U.K. geographic zone.
So, what works for them…
Your not seriously suggesting we can just extract oil from further and further away for ever are you.
Are you trying to delay the inevitable or just trying to deny it?
Peter.
You do not seem to understand.
The oil and gas is there. Right now, the Norwegians are extracting and continuing to work on extracting.
These are economically proven reserves. The cost for extraction is, largely, known.
The Norwegians are choosing to allow the extraction. The U.K. government is not.
The Norwegian policy has been to maximize hydrocarbon revenues, while accelerating the transition to a post hydrocarbon world. It has -I think- been a rather more successful policy than our own.
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
I think there will be a couple of others.
Louise Haigh will get a mid-level to senior cabinet post. I'd put her back to Transport like a shot.
And Anneliese Midgley, who I could see getting some sort of interdepartmental role as a fixer, as she is very well connected. Cabinet Office?
That's not really based on my deep knowledge, but more on listening to (I hope) informed commentary.
The best thing about moving Miliband to CofE is that he would no longer be able to cause economic damage at Environment.
"It;'s also worth noting that the International annual rate of jobs decline in mature oil fields is set at somehwere between 2-4% so from 1980 to 2030 the natural decline would be from about 130k to around 50k on a 2% decline. or roughly where we will are now regardless of Government policy."
Sorry but I do laugh when people make such ill informed comments.
What the hell has the decline in jobs in mature oil fields got to do with anything. Of course they decline. But then you find NEW oil and gas fields to replace them. There is still an estimated recoverable 15 billion BOE equivalent in the UK sector - set against total UK production since the start of the North Sea of 37 billion BOE equivalent. So there are decades of oil and gas still to be developed. Oh and every prediction ever made for the North Sea since it started has underestimated the reserves.
Those job declines are by no means inevitable except due to political decisions
His comment about basin collapse was interesting, but he failed to observe that it's more likely to happen if new drilling and extraction is discouraged.
No it is going to happen at some point because regardless of new drilling there will be eventual decline and what we need to do is accept that and prepare as best we can before it happens. New development will delay it but it is going to happen.
It's a bit like sending reinforcements to a position you can't hold.
You can delay it but you risk losing more men when it falls.
Best to send only enough to hold long enough to prepare a btetter line of defnce and then get as many out first before it falls.
I don't have a problem with some new marginal developments if they make sense, but ignoring the long term outcome becuase you don't want to face it, is burying your head in the sand.
Peter.
No burying of heads in sand - I think Richard is far more familiar with both the geology and economics of the N Sea, than either you or me (certainly me).
Much like fisherman who say there's "Plenty of Fish !" when there isn't there is nothing stopping people knowledgable about an Industry being as prone to believing what they want too over whats' true.
Nuclear, Coal, Oil & Gas, Fisheries, any community with it's core livelihood under threat, they all put forward every argumnet they can think of, even if contradictory.
I was once involved in a school amalgamantion where the parents argued the village needed the school because;
a) There was planning for lots of houses so they needed a school and
b) Without a school the village would die!
Really? If they are going to build all the house then clearly the village isn't going to die . If the village dies they won't build the houses.
The two schools we're less than a mile apart and the bridge between the two villages was less than 100 yards long!
Two great communities full of good intelegent people, but who none the less, they would have backed pretty much anything to keep their school open.
Peter.
In the case of the North Sea, we have the Norwegians as the example of a different approach. On some cases their fields are actually continuous with the U.K. side - so, in theory, they will end up extracting material from the U.K. geographic zone.
So, what works for them…
Your not seriously suggesting we can just extract oil from further and further away for ever are you.
Are you trying to delay the inevitable or just trying to deny it?
Peter.
You do not seem to understand.
The oil and gas is there. Right now, the Norwegians are extracting and continuing to work on extracting.
These are economically proven reserves. The cost for extraction is, largely, known.
The Norwegians are choosing to allow the extraction. The U.K. government is not.
The Norwegian policy has been to maximize hydrocarbon revenues, while accelerating the transition to a post hydrocarbon world. It has -I think- been a rather more successful policy than our own.
Norwegian energy policy has been more successful than UK policy for 50 years. They built up an oil fund when we spaffed our revenues up the walls of privatisation, closures and redundancy.
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
I think there will be a couple of others.
Louise Haigh will get a mid-level to senior cabinet post. I'd put her back to Transport like a shot.
And Anneliese Midgley, who I could see getting some sort of interdepartmental role as a fixer, as she is very well connected. Cabinet Office?
That's not really based on my deep knowledge, but more on listening to (I hope) informed commentary.
Yes I can see both of them getting mid level cabinet appointments. They are the key members of Burnham's inner circle. Haigh to Transport; Midgley to Work and Pensions?
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
I think there will be a couple of others.
Louise Haigh will get a mid-level to senior cabinet post. I'd put her back to Transport like a shot.
And Anneliese Midgley, who I could see getting some sort of interdepartmental role as a fixer, as she is very well connected. Cabinet Office?
That's not really based on my deep knowledge, but more on listening to (I hope) informed commentary.
The best thing about moving Miliband to CofE is that he would no longer be able to cause economic damage at Environment.
Whilst the economic damage done at Environment can barely be underestimated I fear that as Chancellor he would have even more opportunities to damage our economic future.
Wrt to the crocodile and the terrible baby murder. We don't want to pay for any of this. Councils can't afford it. We want it dealt with as quickly, quietly and cheaply as possible. So no "very thorough" checks on potential adoptees. And no qualifications or training for carers. You get what you pay for.
"It;'s also worth noting that the International annual rate of jobs decline in mature oil fields is set at somehwere between 2-4% so from 1980 to 2030 the natural decline would be from about 130k to around 50k on a 2% decline. or roughly where we will are now regardless of Government policy."
Sorry but I do laugh when people make such ill informed comments.
What the hell has the decline in jobs in mature oil fields got to do with anything. Of course they decline. But then you find NEW oil and gas fields to replace them. There is still an estimated recoverable 15 billion BOE equivalent in the UK sector - set against total UK production since the start of the North Sea of 37 billion BOE equivalent. So there are decades of oil and gas still to be developed. Oh and every prediction ever made for the North Sea since it started has underestimated the reserves.
Those job declines are by no means inevitable except due to political decisions
His comment about basin collapse was interesting, but he failed to observe that it's more likely to happen if new drilling and extraction is discouraged.
No it is going to happen at some point because regardless of new drilling there will be eventual decline and what we need to do is accept that and prepare as best we can before it happens. New development will delay it but it is going to happen.
It's a bit like sending reinforcements to a position you can't hold.
You can delay it but you risk losing more men when it falls.
Best to send only enough to hold long enough to prepare a btetter line of defnce and then get as many out first before it falls.
I don't have a problem with some new marginal developments if they make sense, but ignoring the long term outcome becuase you don't want to face it, is burying your head in the sand.
Peter.
No burying of heads in sand - I think Richard is far more familiar with both the geology and economics of the N Sea, than either you or me (certainly me).
Much like fisherman who say there's "Plenty of Fish !" when there isn't there is nothing stopping people knowledgable about an Industry being as prone to believing what they want too over whats' true.
Nuclear, Coal, Oil & Gas, Fisheries, any community with it's core livelihood under threat, they all put forward every argumnet they can think of, even if contradictory.
I was once involved in a school amalgamantion where the parents argued the village needed the school because;
a) There was planning for lots of houses so they needed a school and
b) Without a school the village would die!
Really? If they are going to build all the house then clearly the village isn't going to die . If the village dies they won't build the houses.
The two schools we're less than a mile apart and the bridge between the two villages was less than 100 yards long!
Two great communities full of good intelegent people, but who none the less, they would have backed pretty much anything to keep their school open.
Peter.
In the case of the North Sea, we have the Norwegians as the example of a different approach. On some cases their fields are actually continuous with the U.K. side - so, in theory, they will end up extracting material from the U.K. geographic zone.
So, what works for them…
Your not seriously suggesting we can just extract oil from further and further away for ever are you.
Are you trying to delay the inevitable or just trying to deny it?
Peter.
You do not seem to understand.
The oil and gas is there. Right now, the Norwegians are extracting and continuing to work on extracting.
These are economically proven reserves. The cost for extraction is, largely, known.
The Norwegians are choosing to allow the extraction. The U.K. government is not.
The Norwegian policy has been to maximize hydrocarbon revenues, while accelerating the transition to a post hydrocarbon world. It has -I think- been a rather more successful policy than our own.
TRUMP SPARKS DIPLOMATIC CRISIS WITH ITALY: Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani has canceled his planned June 21–22 trip to Washington after President Trump insulted Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, claiming she “begged” for a photo with him at the G7 and that he “felt sorry for her.”
Meloni released a video firing back at Trump’s comments, calling them “completely fabricated.”
“I am frankly appalled,” she said. “I don’t know why the President of the United States behaves this way towards his allies.”
She added that Trump appears to show more accommodation toward “the enemies of the West” than America’s allies and concluded by saying: “Italy and I never beg.” https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/2067940653401596320
Politico have an interesting article on a similar theme, 2nd term Trump is losing support from nationalists across the world as he has switched from nationalism in his first term to imperialism today.
Sounds like the croc chap needs locking up in a psyc hospital with the key thrown away.
Does it?
If a person with limited mental capacity who has never hurt a fly does something stupid he doesn't understand like; helping the little nice child get a closer look at the nice crocodile and you lock him up for life?
If this is a case of someone with a toddlers level of understanding making a toddlers style mistake, it is a tragedy, not a reason to institutionalise them.
None of us know what happened and if mistakes have been made, what parent or carer hasn't turned round and found someone in their group has or is about to wander off.
Having said that this is modern Britain, so someone must pay, someone needs held to account, a head must roll!
Peter.
Interesting, when so many of PB conversations are about nobody being held to account.
Comments
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself).
i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is;
Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below)
Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves
Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband
Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper.
Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover.
This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides.
I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
I suspect Starmer feels he carries a responsibility on foreign affairs in a very turbulent world, based on his rapport with world leaders.
If you want expensive and batshit crazy demands, see Brexit and the incompetent banana republic adminstration of every government since.
So, what works for them…
If a person with limited mental capacity who has never hurt a fly does something stupid he doesn't understand like; helping the little nice child get a closer look at the nice crocodile and you lock him up for life?
If this is a case of someone with a toddlers level of understanding making a toddlers style mistake, it is a tragedy, not a reason to institutionalise them.
None of us know what happened and if mistakes have been made, what parent or carer hasn't turned round and found someone in their group has or is about to wander off.
Having said that this is modern Britain, so someone must pay, someone needs held to account, a head must roll!
Peter.
It's for buttons though.
Are you trying to delay the inevitable or just trying to deny it?
Peter.
Terrible for the toddler and their family, but barring potential neglect by others not much anyone can do.
Peter.
When all is said, polls provide a useful light on the direction of travel, and for some of us add to the gaiety of nations. They also produce an industry for Sir John Curtice to discuss who is to my mind a national treasure.
James.
Something the Tories have gone for many years.
Addressing rumors that he might harbor desires to return to the party's helm, Miliband stated:
"I had the best inoculation technique against wanting to be leader of the Labour Party, which is that I was leader of the Labour Party."
He further solidified his refusal to seek a political comeback in the top role by adding, "Definitely not, being a Donald Trump, coming back for more.
https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/12/20/ed-miliband-is-33-1-to-be-the-next-chancellor/
The oil and gas is there. Right now, the Norwegians are extracting and continuing to work on extracting.
These are economically proven reserves. The cost for extraction is, largely, known.
The Norwegians are choosing to allow the extraction. The U.K. government is not.
The oil and gas is there. Right now, the Norwegians are extracting and continuing to work on extracting.
These are economically proven reserves. The cost for extraction is, largely, known.
The Norwegians are choosing to allow the extraction. The U.K. government is not.
Richard is an analyst rather than a sophist.
Is quiche still a kind of marker of being a pussilaminous hand-wringing metropolitan liberal I wonder, or has that role been superceded by tofu?
In Asia at least.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy498llene1o
..Her lawyer Najwa El Haïté argued: "The way [Di Dio] was killed – they were the methods of the underworld, of organised crime. No head, no hands – that's not the method of a Marie-Thérèse, a woman with no criminal record."
The complicating factor is that Garcia and Di Dio were both very much connected to the criminal underworld...
I'm not getting my hopes up.
☹️
X
Chris McCall@Dennynews·1h
John Swinney’s day going from bad to worse as a judge rules Scotland’s prison policy, which allows trans inmates in women's jails, is unlawful.
Lady Ross says the law requires clear separation based on biological sex.
…the first thing Andy Burnham has to do after winning is shake hands with a fox and a bin
https://x.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/2067918295324389832
Peter.
So just for Clarity is it;
Wait till people with sevearly limited mental capacity do something like this, and then lock them up for life?
or is it:
Lock all people with limited mental capacity up for life, just in case they do something like this?
Peter.
PM Burnham could make Starmer Minister for the United States and Ambassador to Washington, Lammy Minister for the RestOfTheWorld, and X as CotE, where "x" is somebody competent. Milliband should stay as Energy Sec, he just needs overruling occasionally (carbon capture, killing the oil industry)
Which is why they are *proven*.
Among other things, investors are kinda interested in costs.
Presumably he is the One and they are all the Other!
Peter.
- it was a waste of money but did wonders for Mal’s retirement fund
https://x.com/SLCLunk/status/2067810198853734461
Really.
TRUMP SPARKS DIPLOMATIC CRISIS WITH ITALY: Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani has canceled his planned June 21–22 trip to Washington after President Trump insulted Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, claiming she “begged” for a photo with him at the G7 and that he “felt sorry for her.”
Meloni released a video firing back at Trump’s comments, calling them “completely fabricated.”
“I am frankly appalled,” she said. “I don’t know why the President of the United States behaves this way towards his allies.”
She added that Trump appears to show more accommodation toward “the enemies of the West” than America’s allies and concluded by saying: “Italy and I never beg.”
https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/2067940653401596320
Obviously.
Louise Haigh will get a mid-level to senior cabinet post. I'd put her back to Transport like a shot.
And Anneliese Midgley, who I could see getting some sort of interdepartmental role as a fixer, as she is very well connected. Cabinet Office?
That's not really based on my deep knowledge, but more on listening to (I hope) informed commentary.
This will deliver generic pseudo legalese bollocks on any meta level of enquiries.
This will facilitate the leveraging of AI to increase productivity in the Enquiry Industrial complex in all metrics and KPIs.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2026/05/tracked-the-labour-mps-calling-for-keir-starmer-to-go
They are the key members of Burnham's inner circle.
Haigh to Transport; Midgley to Work and Pensions?
Though arguably I do not need it. As I said hours ago:
What happens now is that the school finds the quiche and calls her back in to collect it.
We don't want to pay for any of this. Councils can't afford it. We want it dealt with as quickly, quietly and cheaply as possible.
So no "very thorough" checks on potential adoptees. And no qualifications or training for carers.
You get what you pay for.
Look at their grid and EV adoption.
Has the quiche been secured?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/06/19/trump-mistake-nationalism-brexit-column-00963265